TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 478X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not excisable goods on which duty is liable to be paid by the appellant and hence we find that the lower authorities are in error for imposing penalty without specifying the nature of violation which will attract such penalty. Chewing tobacco of 399 bags kept in duty paid godown of the appellant - confiscation of these chewing tobacco on the ground that the same were not mentioned in the stock register and no document was produced in this regard - Held that:- The appellants have submitted that out of these 399 bags, 165 bags were duly entered on page 107-109 of the stock register of duty paid godown, the same were received under proper invoices and bills. The said stock register was maintained in the nearby office. The remaining 234 bag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpex will necessarily be a party to the proceedings. The case on this issue will fail both on legal and factual basis. Seizure of 127 bags of chewing tobacco from the premises of M/s.R.P.Agencies - Held that:- We find that no notice has been serviced to M/s.R.P.Agencies, though, the goods were seized from their premises and custody. In fact the proceedings for confiscation of goods, if any, in the above two issues is to be directed against the owner of the said goods. The appellants only were served notice for confiscation of these goods not to the parties from whom the seizure was made. We find that the impugned order suffers from serious legal infirmity. The main point being that there has been no determination or demand of central exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of central excise law. There are four issues on which action was taken against appellant: (a) Packing material kept in unregistered premises (b) Chewing tobacco kept in duty paid godown without accounts (c) Chewing tobacco found in the premises of dealer after unaccounted clearance (d) Chewing tobacco found in the premises of sub-dealer after unaccounted clearance. All these goods were sought to be confiscated and penalties were imposed for illegal storage and clearance of packing materials and finished goods. 3. Learned Counsel submitted a detailed written note summarizing their defence. 4. Shri R.K.Mishra reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He further submitted that though there is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thout specifying the nature of violation which will attract such penalty. 7. Next issue is relating to chewing tobacco of 399 bags kept in duty paid godown of the appellant. The impugned order upheld the confiscation of these chewing tobacco on the ground that the same were not mentioned in the stock register and no document was produced in this regard. The appellants have submitted that out of these 399 bags, 165 bags were duly entered on page 107-109 of the stock register of duty paid godown, the same were received under proper invoices and bills. The said stock register was maintained in the nearby office. The remaining 234 bags were received back from the market and were unfit for consumption. We find that the appellant categorical a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds were seized then M/s.Kushboo Impex will necessarily be a party to the proceedings. The case on this issue will fail both on legal and factual basis. 9. Regarding the seizure of 127 bags of chewing tobacco from the premises of M/s.R.P.Agencies, we find that the said M/s.R.P.Agencies were the dealers of M/s.Kushboo Impex and Shri Pramod Gupta, Proprietor in his statement dated 12.9.2005 categorically stated that he purchased the goods from M/s.Kushboo Impex and not from the appellant. He did produce bills for the purchase of goods. We find that no notice has been serviced to M/s.R.P.Agencies, though, the goods were seized from their premises and custody. In fact the proceedings for confiscation of goods, if any, in the above two issues ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
