Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Shakti Zarda Factory (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE, New Delhi

2016 (3) TMI 478 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Confiscation of packing material kept in unregistered premises - case of the appellant that no credit was taken on any of the packing materials; due records have been kept - Commissioner (Appeals) held that confiscation is not sustainable, however, he upheld the penalty - Held that:- We find the said confiscation is in respect of packing materials which were kept in the unregistered premises opposite to the appellants unit. We find that Rule 25 talks about contravention relating to excisale goo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ioned 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 bags were received back from the market and were unfit for consumption. We find that the appellant categorical assertion regarding avai .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rder of confiscation and penalty under Rule 25 is not sustainable. No evidence was attributed for any clandestine or unaccounted clearance of these goods from the appellant’s unit.

Seizure of 203 bags of chewing tobacco from the premises of M/s.Kushboo Impex Pvt.Ltd - Held that:- The appellants plea is that identical goods were also manufactured by M/s.Shakti Packers and Shri Singhal in his statement dated 4.8.2004 did indicate that the same items might have been received from the M/ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

BR> 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 im .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appeals against order dated 10.09.2008 of Commissioner (Appeals), Delhi-II. The main appellant (M/s. Shakti Zarda Factory (India) Pvt. Ltd.) are engaged in the manufacture of chewing tobacco liable to Central Excise Duty. Certain investigations were carried out by the Central Excise Officers after searches in various premises on 4.8.2005. A show cause notice dated 27.1.2006 was issued to the main appellant and Manager of the appellant factory. After due process, order dated 11.1.2007 was issued .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the proceedings of the lower authority. The seizure, confiscation and penalty are not sustainable under any 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 goo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

5. We have heard both sides and examined the appeal records. We find that neither show cause notice nor order issued by the lower authority proposes or confirms any central excise duty on the appellant. Of the five charges made in the show cause notice dated 3.2.2006, four relates to confiscation of various seized goods and fifth one relates to imposition of penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act,1994 read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. All the confiscations were p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

25 talks about contravention relating to excisale goods and contravention of Rules with intent to evade payment of duty. In the present case, packing materials are 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. 7. Next issue is relating to chewing tobacco of 399 bags kept in duty paid godown of the appellant. The impu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e unfit for consumption. We find that the appellant categorical assertion regarding availability of stock records for a part of the goods in their office records kept nearby and remaining goods being returned as unfit for consumption has not been duly considered by the lower authority. The contentions were rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) as an afterthought. We find that the appellants have filed documents regarding 165 bags and regarding the remaining, we find that in the absence of alleg .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

x Pvt.Ltd.. The appellants plea is that identical goods were also manufactured by M/s.Shakti Packers and Shri Singhal in his statement dated 4.8.2004 did indicate that the same items might have been received from the M/s.Shakti Packers. We find that no cross verification was made on that and further no notice has been issued to M/s.Kushboo Impex from whose premises and custody the goods have been seized. Even the ownership of the goods have not been examined categorically. If the goods were sol .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version