TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 685X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etailed in the order itself. 2. The appellant No. 1, M/s. Kalvert Foods India Pvt. Ltd. is a company (in short hereinafter referred to as Company ) engaged in the manufacture of P P Food Products, such as, assorted jams, pickles, squashes, cooking sauces, chutneys, syrups, synthetic vinegars etc. The company is also trading in sugar, salt and pepper by packing into small packs. The appellant No. 2, Shri Yunus A. Kalvert is the Managing Director of the Company. The Revenue authorities visited the factory premises of the company on 22-11-2000. One tempo was standing there loaded with the goods and the same was seized. The goods found lying excess in the stock than what were entered into RG-I register, valued at Rs. 7,33,668/- were also s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pany denied any clandestine removal of the excisable goods to any of the dealers or the selling agent. The company also denied of having cleared the excisable goods without payment of duty in the guise of sugar, salt and pepper, to the selling agent, M/s. RTC. The Commissioner who adjudicated the show cause notice, however, confirmed the duty demand and ordered the confiscation of the seized goods, imposed penalty equivalent to the amount of duty on the company, appellants no. 1, and also imposed penalty on the other two appellants, as detailed in the impugned order itself. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that there is no tangible, reliable and cogent evidence to substantiate the allegations of clandestine removal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntative of the company and this fact even finds mentioned in the show cause notice itself. Therefore, neither the tempo nor the goods loaded therein could be legally seized and confiscated when the relevant documents were shown to the officers at the spot. It could not be said that an attempt was being made to clear those goods in tempo in a clandestine manner, when the company s representative produced the invoices and other relevant documents in respect thereof. The Commissioner has thus wrongly ordered the confiscation of those goods and the tempo. Therefore, his order in this regard cannot be sustained and is set aside. 7. Similarly, the confiscation of the goods valued at Rs. 7,33,668/- as ordered by the learned Commissioner in the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... found lying with them in their premises, could not be made basis for raising inference that those goods were received by them without payment of duty, from the company. The Revenue officials did not reconcile the stock found lying with the dealers/traders and the selling agents with the record of the company, appellants No. 1 to ascertain if any goods had been not accounted for in the record of the company and had been cleared without payment of duty. No evidence had been also collected to, prima facie, show the excess receipt of raw material, excess consumption of electricity by the company for manufacturing the extra goods than what were recorded in the record. Therefore, the goods found lying in the stock of the dealers/traders and selli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for which the appellant-company cleared the sugar, salt etc. to them, was not enough to raise an inference that sugar and salt was never sold to them by the appellant-company. The company had produced record regarding the sale of sugar, salt and pepper, etc., to M/s. RTC and the latter (M/s. RTC) had even shown the purchase of the same in their books of account. During the period when the sale of sugar, salt, etc., was made to M/s. RTC, the appellant-company also cleared the dutiable goods, such as, vinegar, jams, sauces, etc., under statutory invoices to that company and all that was reflected in the stock register of the company. The appellant-company even reflected the sale of those goods in their RT-12 returns. The copy of the entries m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yrups, etc., cleared by the appellants company, to its distributors/traders and selling agent. The company has only mentioned its full name, M/s. Kalvert Foods India Pvt. Ltd. on the containers. The company had never promoted any brand name by the name KALVERT on any of the products in dispute in the present case. They had even produced search report received by them from the Trade Mark and Patent Company to show that the brand name KALVERT did not even stand registered in their name. The Company, in terms of Clause 8(i)(b) of the Food Products Order, 1995, had displayed its complete name on the goods manufactured and cleared by them in the market. That name could only be termed as HOUSE MARK and not trade name. The observation of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
