9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (5) TMI 214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emand. The period involved along with the respective date of show cause notices and the amount of duty and penalty in this appeal are as follows : S. NO. APPEAL NO.& STAY NO. PERIOD SCN DATED DUTY RS. PENALTY RS. LACS 1. E/753-R/98 E/Stay-472-R/98 April 95 to March 96 15-7-1996 Rs. 74,69,228/- Rs. 50.00 lacs 2. E/574-R/98 E/Stay-473-R/98 April 96 to June 96 2-9-1996 Rs. 25,30,990/- Rs. 25.00 lacs 3. E/575-R/98 E/Stay-474-R/98 July 96 to Sept. 96 27-11-1996 Rs. 24,33,31/- Rs. 5.00 lacs 4. E/576-R/98 E/Stay-475-R/98 Oct. 96 to Dec. 96 5-5-1997 Rs. 26,16,570/- Rs. 20.00 lacs 5. E/577-R/98 E/Stay-476-R/98 Jan. 97 to March 97 1-5-1997 Rs. 25,70,370/- Rs. 15.00 lacs TOTAL DEMAND Rs. 1,76 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is produced. The applicants process is not at all comparable with the narration in the High Court order; therefore the material at the hands of the applicant cannot be held to be chewing tobacco. On limitation the ld. Counsel referred to their letter to the department dated 6-1-1996 during the relevant period to this case addressed to the Superintendent Central Excise wherein they have informed the Department that they are buying raw tobacco for the market and the mixing with Kimam. It is then cured and subjected to further processing for producing gutkha; they have also expressed the view that the tobacco so purchased is not flavoured tobacco and it is part of their in- process material and they have further stated that they are not sellin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e department, but has not been dealt with and considered in the impugned order. The goods being captively consumed are exempt according to this notification and thereby the demand in respect of these three show cause notices will have to be dropped. The ld. Counsel further submitted that in respect of the two other appeals the demand is partly hit by limitation in E/573-R/98, amount within the normal period in the cases with which only to Rs. 10,69,228/- out of the total duty of Rs. 74,69,228/-. Even after including the duty demand in appeal E/574-R/98 of Rs. 25,38,990/- total duty demand, in these two appeals would come to Rs. 36,00,218/- It is the maximum duty amount, in this case the appellant would be liable to duty amount, if at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation has been received on 19-9-1997. The impugned order has been finalised and passed only on 28-10-1997 and apparently the papers were not linked for being considered by the adjudicating authority. Prima facie we are of the view that the notification has relevance to the applicants claim since the goods are admittedly consumed captively by the applicants in the manufacture of Gutkha. Therefore so far as these three demands in these appeals are concerned, there is a prima facie case for granting stay, and it is ordered accordingly. As regards the other two appeals, the question of excisability is arguable and as contended by the ld. DR the Commissioner has arrived at his conclusion on the basis of material, which prima facie appears to us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
