TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 633X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction of goods without bringing them into account and clandestine removal of the same.- As per the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CCE, Chandigarh vs.Nachiketa Paper Ltd.[2007 -TMI - 4147 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA] in support of her contention that the demand of duty on presumption and assumption that the raw material found short must have been used in the manufacture of final products which would have been cleared without payment of duty was not justified - Decided in favour of assessee. - E/2267/2009, E/2583-84/2009 - - - Dated:- 15-4-2011 - Mr.M.Veeraiyan, J. Present for the Appellant: Shri S.K.Bhaskar, SDR Present for the Respondent: Ms.Sukriti Das, Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on 21.06.2007. A show cause notice was issued proposing confirmation of demand of duty already paid and proposing imposition of penalty on the company and the directors. In reply to the show cause notice, the respondent company contested the demand on the ground that the shortage of raw tobacco was due to dryness of raw tobacco and wastage during manufacturing process and the same is less than 3% of the raw tobacco processed. It was also contended that no presumption of unaccounted production of chewing tobacco can be made and duty demanded. The respondents also contested that no penalty was imposable on them. However, the original authority confirmed the demand as proposed in the show cause notice and imposed penalty of Rs.5,04,934/- und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epartmental view point at any stage of the proceedings. In view of the above, I do not find any justification to sustain the demand raised in this case. Regarding the imposition of penalties, I observe that since there is no case of evasion against appellant No.1, as such, there is no justification to impose the penalties upon any of the appellants. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals filed by the appellants without consequential relief. 5. Learned SDR reiterates the grounds of appeal. He submits that the shortage stands admitted by the director. The respondent company deposited the entire duty involved on 21.6.2007. Therefore, the order of the original authority is legal and proper. He seeks for setting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rectors of the respondent-company was that the same was attributable to dryness of raw tobacco and wastage and manufacturing loss over a period of time. Before the original authority, it was claimed that the loss was less than 3%. There was no admission of suppression of production or production of goods without bringing them into account and clandestine removal of the same. There is also no evidence in the form of private records indicating unaccounted production and clandestine removal of the goods. Mere payment of duty involved, (which according to the advocate was under compulsion and according to the learned DR was voluntary without protest) cannot be the basis for coming to the conclusion of suppression of production and clandestine r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
