Amar Jyoti Packers vs Commissioner Of Central Excise
2006 Latest Caselaw 1692 Del

ORDER

1. On holistic reading of the impugned Order we are unable to agree with learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner's financial hardship had not been considered. The Tribunal as well as the Commissioner had come to the conclusion that the Petitioner was actually in the control of Devi Dass Garg, Rakesh Kumar Garg and Santosh Kumar Garg. In the Order dated 7-7-2006 of this Court in WP (C) Nos. 9243/2006, 9341/2006 and 9325/2006 filed by Devi Dass Garg and the two others, there is an observation, with which we are in respectful agreement, that it is incredible that seasoned businessmen had allowed their 'Pujari' to run their business. Mr. Chandhiok submits that if the Petitioner is considered as a Pujari, and not the manufacturer, then his financial hardship would become obvious. We are unable to agree. If the corporate veil is lifted the persons who are in actual control of Amar Jyoti Packers will have to pay the impugned demand. No grounds to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are made out.

2. Dismissed.