9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 993X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turing of different mentha products falling, under Chapter Heading No. 29, 30 & 33 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On an intelligence, one truck was intercepted by the officers of the Preventive Branch of Central Excise Division on 27.10.2009, and goods (said to be Denatured Mentha Oil) or DMO, weighing 2,880 Kg. valued at Rs. 10,91,400/-, packed in 16 G.I. drums, were detained for further investigations. The scrutiny of the documents as available with the driver of the vehicle and the statements tendered under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 of the driver as well as Shri Anurag Kothiwal an employee of the company accompanying the goods, it was noticed that the detained goods were purchased by the appellant-M/s Quality Fl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmission is paid by the seller of the material. Shri Mukesh used to arrange DMO from un-registered dealer i.e. Kisan, Traders or General public, who are not registered. He further stated that the 85% of DMO is procured from un-registered persons and they refuse to sign the documents and disclose their name and address. Shri Mukesh Kumar Rastogi in his statement stated that he had provided only 6 drums of DMO to M/s Quality Flavours Export, Moradabad on 27.10.09. Shri Rajeev Gupta had asked him to provide only 6 drums of DMO. He further stated that he had no office & records of his business and the commission is paid to him by the seller only. 3. The goods were provisionally released on payment of estimated duty and furnishing o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the proviso under Section 110 of Sub-Section 2 of the Customs Act. In view of the fact that no extension for issue of show cause notice was granted by the competent authority in the present case. Accordingly, he held that the seized goods and the truck are not liable to confiscation. The duty on the goods in question i.e. loaded in the truck, amounting to Rs. 1,69,632/- was confirmed, holding that the appellant has not enable to corroborate that the goods-DMO were being transported on being charged from the local market. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellants have preferred appeal before this Tribunal, urging that no case of clandestine removal have been made debit against the appellants. Further, in view of the purchase bil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
