9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 969X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erent brands of Cigarettes and registered with Central Excise Department. The appellant used to draw samples of Cigarettes from the production floor for carrying out "certain in house lab tests" such as 'Moisture Test', 'endless test', 'Firmness Index test', 'Pressure drop test' and circumference test. It was noticed by the department that the appellants used to maintain records of the samples of cigarettes drawn for Moisture test but no records were maintain for drawl of sample for other tests. It appeared to Revenue that the drawl of samples for other tests, is clearance of goods without payment of duty. Therefore, the appellants were issued with a Show-cause-notice No.19/ADC/GZB/2011 dated 07.07.2011, invoking proviso to Sub-Section 1 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arguments put forth by the appellant and confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty, amounting to Rs. 7,16,783.08, under proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 11 A of Central Excise Act, 1944 and imposed equal penalty. The original authority directed the appellant to pay interest and original authority imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on Shri Maninder Singh Makkar. 3. Aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original dated 29.05.2012, both the appellants to this appeal have preferred appeal before Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Ghaziabad. The grounds of appeal before the first appellate authority were similar to the contentions before the original Authority. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 6. We have taken into consideration the rival contentions. We note that cigarettes are the commodity under physical control Central Excise Officers are posted in the manufacturing units for all the 24 hours. Therefore, all the activities going on in respect of manufacture and levy of Central Excise duty in cigarettes factories are within the knowledge of Central Excise authorities. Therefore, the contention of the Department that there has been suppression of fact on the part of the appellant , is not sustainable. The entire demand is raised under extended period and since the suppression cannot sustain, the invocation of proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 11 A of Central Excise Act, 1944 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
