9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ff Act, 1985, the fact that the appellant-assessee was under normal levy scheme under Section 3 of the Act, whether Revenue could have estimated clandestine production on the basis of some information that the appellant was operating their factory for about 12 hours instead of the stated 10 hours in the declaration and accordingly could have estimated the production or excess production during the additional 110 minutes and accordingly demand duty on the same. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant-assessee are engaged in manufacture of Pan Masala & Gutkha, was paying tax under the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, based on actual production. In terms of Circular No. 854/12/2007/CX dated 7/09/2007, the appellant submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hines, worked out extra production and/or clandestine production at 3,69,600 pouches per day. On such calculation of clandestine manufacture, the Revenue formed reasonable belief that the goods manufactured in the extra time, that is 3,69,600 pouches of Gutkha bearing Rs. 1 MRP, valued at Rs. 3,69,600 were meant for surreptitious removal without payment of duty and the same was detained under seizure memo dated 28/03/ 2008. Subsequently, Show Cause Notice, dated 03/04/2008, was issued on the aforementioned allegations, among others, and it further appeared that the appellant were producing excess goods by operating for extra 90 minutes daily for the last one month except Sunday in contravention of Circular No. 854/12/2007/CX, dated 07/09/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... avit of Shri Anandi Prasad - Labour Supervisor, his statement was recorded at the time of inspection observing that the affidavit dated 19/02/2009, which is much after the issue of Show Cause Notice on 03/04/2008 and accordingly the same was held to be not reliable. Both the demand and the penalty on the firm was confirmed, but the penalty on the partners was deleted being uncalled for. 4. Being aggrieved the appellant firm is before this Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the appellant have urged that at the relevant time there was no scheme of compounded levy on the manufacture and clearance of Pan Masala "Gutkha". Further the Revenue have not found any discrepancy as is evident from the facts narrated in the show cause notice, in the stock r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
