Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2011 (7) TMI 12

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the product - The pouches being less than 10 grams are exempted from declaring the date of manufacture - The month of manufacture is only printed on the wholesale bags/ packets containing 50 such pouches - He submits that there being no other evidence on record, the findings of the lower authorities that the bags printed with January and February 2006 as manufacturing dates, were not the same goods which were entered in RG-1 register, cannot be upheld - Hence, set-aside the confirmation of demand of duty, imposition of penalty and confiscation of the goods against M/s. Chetna Zarda Company and imposition of penalty on Shri Dinesh L. Daiya - Thus, the appeals are, accordingly allowed with relief to the appellants. - E/1579 and 1580 of 201 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ingly, 18,12,250 pouches of ZATPAT gutkha in fully packed condition with the markings packed in January 2006 and February 2006 , 45 bags containing 1,82,250 pouches of FIFTY FIFTY gutkha and 12 bags containing 1440 pouches of CHETNA chewing tobacco totally valued at Rs. 9,06,125/- were seized which were later provisionally released on execution of Bond backed by bank guarantee. The seized goods were cleared on payment of duty of Rs. 6,48,965/-. 3. After investigations of the case, show cause notice dated 18.10.2006 was issued proposing confiscation of seized goods, appropriation of duty of Rs. 6,48,965/- paid on clearance of seized goods and imposition of penalty on all the three appellants. Another show cause notice dated 02.4.2007 was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the notices shall be decided by a single officer in a single order after considering all the pleas made by the appellants. Accordingly, Joint Commissioner in de-novo proceedings passed the impugned single order for both the show cause notices. He maintained the demands as well penalties on all the appellants as imposed in the first set of orders. 5. M/s. Chetna Zarda Company in their appeal have contended that on 20.4.2006 they had 18,12,250 pouches of ZATPAT gutkha out of which 2,52,592 pouches were seized by FDA authorities in the year 2005, 14,85,000 pouches were as per stock in RG-1 register and 3,27,250 pouches were manufactured during the day. Similarly, 45 bags containing 1,82,250 pouches of FIFTY FIFTY gutkha and 12 bags contain .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is not sustainable as per catena case laws on this issue. 7. The Commissioner (Appeal) did not accept the above contention of the appellants that the marking on the outer bags of ZATPAT gutkha were printed by mistake by their illiterate worker, on the ground that the bags of FIFTY FIFTY gutkah and Chetna chewing zarda, which were found during the physical verification, carried the month of packing as April 2006. He also observed that the month of packing is not printed on the pouches but on the boxes and therefore, the month of packing need not be fed in the packing machine of the pan masala. The slips which pasted on the larger packings are actually printed on the inkjet printers and hence the same need not be printed on each box, rat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pted from declaring the date of manufacture. The month of manufacture is only printed on the wholesale bags/ packets containing 50 such pouches. He submits that there being no other evidence on record, the findings of the lower authorities that the bags printed with January and February 2006 as manufacturing dates, were not the same goods which were entered in RG-1 register, cannot be upheld. He submits that no reasonably prudent man would clear the goods manufactured in April 2006, and recorded in the statutory records but would keep the goods manufactured in January and February 2006 in their factory. 9. After hearing the learned DR, I find force in the above contention of the learned advocate. Admittedly, the FIFTY FIFTY gutkha, also .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates