TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (7) TMI 157
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d with Section 11A and also imposed personal penalty of Rs. 1000/- on the appellants under Rule 210 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The facts in brief are that the cross-checking of records of the appellants who are wholesale dealers in tobacco, the Departmental Officer found that they had manufactured unbranded chewing tobacco during the period 1-7-1982 to 8-11-1983 and had cleared the same without payment of duty and without accounting for the goods in the statutory record RG 12 Register. It was found that during the relevant period, they were holding Central Excise Licence for manufacture of branded chewing jarda. As per the Notification No. 34/79-C.E., unbranded chewing tobacco manufactured by a manufacturer by whom or on whose behal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acco. He also noted that it was used for chewing purposes. He also gave finding that from the prices of branded chewing Jarda and the prices of Mohite Jarda No.l and 2, the latter was sold at much higher prices and from this concluded that it cannot be believed that what was sold was not treated with foreign materials. The demand for duty was confirmed and penalty imposed in the ultimate adjudication that is passed by the Additional Collector which is now under appeal before the Tribunal. 2. When the appeal was called none was present for the appellants who have by a letter dated 5-9-1991 stated that their financial condition is not good for them to be present for the hearing with their Consultant and that the case may be decided on merits....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ufacture bringing the goods under Tariff Item 411(5) since they are used for chewing purposes. The price difference which is noted by the Additional Collector is also a clear pointer to the fact that the tobacco is processed tobacco. The learned Senior Departmental Representative further contended that the appellants have relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Pune v. Jaikisan Tobacco Co., Pune reported in 1986 (23) E.L.T. 184 (Tribunal) which is not factually parallel to the present case because in the present case the process of beating whole leaf tobacco into broken leaf has been carried on by the appellants. 3. The submissions made by both the parties have been carefully considered. The Dep....