TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same on payment of redemption fine. Penalties are also imposed on the appellant. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of branded chewing tobacco as well as pan masala. On 23-11-96, officers of Revenue visited the factory premises of the appellant and a truck loaded with the goods was found in the factory. The appellant produced invoice showing the payment of duty in respect of the goods loaded in the truck. As per the invoice, the description of the goods was mentioned as Super Kapoori Tobacco 6 gms in 20 bags. Each bag containing 100 packet of 25 pouches of 6 gms. Tobacco. Total weight of the consignment was shown as 300 kgs. When the bags were opened, it was found that each bag contains 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and finished goods. The goods found in excess i.e. finished goods, raw materials and packing materials were seized by the revenue officers. A show cause notice was issued for demanding duty for the period 1-11-96 to 23-11-96 on the basis of loose slips recovers from the drawer and from Shri Karan Singh and for confiscation of the seized goods and imposition of penalties. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed the penalties and also confiscated the excess goods. 3. The contention of the appellant is that the statement of Mr. Karan Singh was not recorded under Section 14 of Central Excise Act and it was not signed by any excise officer. The contention is also that officers of Revenue came to their factory premises on 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tains 25 pouches of 6 gms instead of 100 packets as mentioned in the invoice. It is not in the case of one bag. The same situation is in all the bags loaded in the truck, therefore, it cannot be said that due to negligence of the workers, this happens. There was an excess quantity of 150 kgs. on which no duty has been paid. The contention is also that as the documents recovered from the appellant premises showing the production and clearance of the goods for the period mentioned in the document which was not reflected in the statutory records, therefore, duty was rightly demanded. 5. We find that in this case admitted position is that the appellants are storing raw material as well as excess goods and finished goods in the premises which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
