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

2016 (7) TMI 299

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r Kishanlal Jain along with penalty of identical amount. In addition, penalty of Rs. 20000/- stand imposed on each of the other two appellants who are a proprietor of the main unit as also the authorized signatory, in terms of provisions of Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. 2. As the appellants had made a request to decide the appeals on the basis of records available and their memo of appeal , we have heard the learned DR and have gone through the impugned order. 3. As per the facts on record, the appellant M/s. Santosh Kumar Kishanlal Jain is the proprietary firm of Shri Santosh Kumar Jain and engaged in the manufacture of unmanufactured tobacco under the brand name of Lalit Chaap Tej Tambakhu classifiable under Chapter 24 of Centr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ted pouches with outer cover of Lalit Chhap Tej Tambakhu which were purchased from M/s.Guru Print, Pack Industries, Jabalpur. Statement of various dealers were also recorded wherein they admitted having received the final product from the appellant during the said period. The final product was also found at the dealers premises and seized. 5. Based upon the above proceedings were initiated against the appellant by ways of show cause notice dated 20.6.11 alleging clandestine removal and proposing to confirm duty of Rs. 31,12,935/- demandable in respect of clandestine manufacture and cleared goods as also proposing penalty, inter alia, on the manufacturing unit as also on the other noticees. The said show cause notice stand adjudicated by th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h and 20,000 outer covers were meant to pack these pouches kept to given them "puda" shape for the marketing of the finished goods. 45.6. As per the evidence available on records out of these packing material the noticee could have manufacture 10,000 pudas of 3 gms tobacco pouch and 10000 pudas of 6 gms tobacco pouch." 6. As such, after granting the benefit of traded raw tobacco, as also taking into account the packing puda of the appellant, he confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 1,20,000/- against M/s. Santosh Kumar Kishan Lal Jain and imposed penalty of Rs. 20,000/- each on Shri Kishan Lal as also on Shri Lalit Kumar Jain. The said order of the adjudicating original authority stand confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the pr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eipt of tobacco as also the fact of receipt of huge number of packing material. They have taken a bald stand that is, the packing material so procured by them was destroyed by them subsequently. However, there is no evidence on record to show as to when and how such packing material was destroyed. Revenue have procured evidence of receipt of unaccounted tobacco, receipt of packing material as also sale of final product to the assessees dealers. The appellants have not been able to rebutt the above evidence with any counter evidence. On the contrary, they have accepted the receipt of said material. Infact, we find that the order passed by the original adjudicating authority is very justifiable order as it also extends benefit to the assesse .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y unit has also been penalized and imposition of separate penalty on proprietor would amount to double penalization. Accordingly, by following the settled law on the said issue (reference can be made to Tribunals decision in the case of Patel Products vs. CCE, Lucknow 2003 151 ELT 650 (Tri-Del], we set aside the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- imposed on Shri Santosh Kumar Jain, Proprietor of the firm Santosh Kumar Kishanlal Jain. As regards the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on Shri Lalit Kumar Jain, he was only an authorized signatory of the firm during the relevant period. Revenue has not brought on record any evidence to reflect upon his involvement in clandestine activities of the firm. As such, by extending the benefit of doubt to the said appellan .....

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