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

..... ter 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 assessee in respect of tobacco traded by them as also takes into account the correct formula for use of the packing material. In such a scenario, it can be justifiably held that appellant during the relevant period were indulging in clandestine manufacture and clearance of their final product, though they were reflecting nil production in their RT 12 returns. - Demand confirmed - Matter remanded for computation of duty liability - Decided against the assessee. - Excise Appeal No. 428, 429 & 430/2008 - Final Order No . 52204-5 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 999 and did not show any production and clearance of branded Chewing Tobacco i.e. Lalit Chaap Tej Tambakhu. The other premises of the said firm were also raided by the officer on 20.11.1999 and lot of discrepancies were found in respect of raw materials as also of the finished goods. The goods were seized under a panchnama dated 20.11.1999 and statement of various persons were recorded. It was found that there was780 Kgs of final product lying in their factory which was seized by the officers on the reasonable belief that same was meant for clandestine removal. After recording the statement of various persons, proceedings were initiated against the appellant by way of issuance of show cause notice dated 29.6.2001 relatable to duty demand .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... said quantity, the quantity of 6949 Kgs. of tobacco was purchased by Shri Lalit Kumar Jain who was having his own trading activity, it is only the balance quantity of loose tobacco which has to be held as having been used for the manufacture of illicitly removed final product. Similarly, in respect of packing material, he observed that entire 3,20,000 packing material was used in a particular manner and Revenue cannot demand duty by treating the entire packing material as that of packing of 6 gms tobacco. For better appreciation, we reproduce the relevant paragraph from the order of the adjudicating authority: 45.5 I find that discreet investigations were conducted in the instant case at the suppliers as well as purchaser s end (suppl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sued based upon the panchnama dated 28.11.99 prepared by the visiting officer, the entire facts came to the Revenues knowledge on 20.11.99 and issuance of show cause notice on 29.06.2001 is barred by limitation. 8. The said plea of the appellant stand dealt with by the Commissioner (Appeals) in a proper and appropriate manner. It is seen that the allegation against the appellant are clandestine manufacture and removal of their final product. The earlier show cause notice was in respect of discrepancy noticed by the revenue at the time of their visit to the appellants factory. That was the starting point of investigation and during the intervening period, Revenue recorded the statement of various persons including the supplier of raw mate .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... arance of their final product, though they were reflecting nil production in their RT 12 returns. 10. The appellants further contended that while adopting value of the final product as ₹ 12 per puda containing 3 gm and 6 gm , the benefit of duty liable to be paid on the same has not been extended. We agree with the appellant that in terms of Hon ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi vs. Maruti Udyog [2000 (141) ELT 3 (SC)], the entire consideration has to be considered as cum duty price and the benefit of duty has to be extended. As per the appellant, the duty liability in that case would come down to ₹ 40,000/-. However, we direct the original authority to consider the entire conside .....

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