9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f facts of the case are that the appellant was a manufacturer of Pan Masala, Gutkha and Sweet Supari, prior to 01/07/2008 when the Compounded Levy Scheme was introduced. Admitted facts are that the appellant had 10 packing machines in their factory. On 30th June, 2008, they had filed an intimation that they wish to suspend production of their unit with effect from 01/07/2008 till 03/07/2008 (both days inclusive due to off-season). In response thereto the inspector visited the said unit on 01/07/2008 at 10:40 AM and sealed 8 packing machines and further stated that now the number of machine in the factory is nil. Thereafter, the appellant on 03/07/2008 again filed another request, stating therein that they wish to continue the suspension of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inspection the packing material lying in stock was also verified and it was found that the appellant was having in their stockroom of raw materials, laminated rolls of brands namely Gomati Premium and Guide Gutkha having MRP of Rs. 1.50, totaling 72.23 Kgs. Further, a note was prepared addressed to the appellant unit on 17/07/2008, prepared by the inspector, stating therein that during the visit of your factory on 17/07/2008, on verification of the stock of the laminated rolls, it was found that the laminated rolls of retail sale price Rs. 1.50 wherein Gomati Premium and Guide Gutkha was found stored. In your declaration dated 10/07/2008 in terms of Rule 6(1) of Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant thereafter filed a representation on 04th August, 2008 stating that the said redetermination dated 04/08/2008 is not accordance to Sub-rule 3 and 4 of Rule 6 and Rule 8 of the Pan Masala packing Materials Rules, 2008 stating therein that it is admitted fact that they are manufacturing Gomati Brand Gutkha and Sweet Supari with effect from 7th July, 2008. Further, admitted facts are that out of 10 machines 2 machines have been removed on 30th June, 2008 in sealed condition from the factory. Further, the 8 machines available in the factory are sealed condition on 07th July, 2008. It has been declared that they are manufacturing Pan Masala/Gutkha of MRP Rs. 1 from 6 machines and from 2 machines they are manufacturing Sweet Supari. According ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ara 13 of their declaration dated 10/07/2008. Further, as the provisions of Rule 4, 6(4), 8, there were 10 machines installed in the factory of the appellant on 1st July 2008 and the Deputy Commissioner by his order No.3/2008 dated 17/07/2008 determined the annual capacity considering the installation of 10 pouch packing machines engaged in the manufacture of Gutkha of RSP Rs. 1.50 and Pan Masala of RSP Rs. 1.00. And further the show cause stated that the appellant vide their representation dated 04/08/2008 requested for re-determination of Annual Capacity of production, pleading that till June 2008 in addition to manufacturing Gutkha of MRP Rs. 1.00, occasionally Gutkha of Rs. 1.50 was also manufactured. However, the determination of Annua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acture of Gutkha and instead of Rs. 1.00 MRP declared by the appellant, the MRP was taken as Rs. 1.50. The balance proposed demand of Rs. 2,18,50,000/- was dropped. Further, penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on the appellant under Rule 17 of Pan Masala Packing Machine Rules read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant-assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal on the ground that without there being any finding contrary to what the appellant had declared in the declaration form, the demand have been proposed and confirmed, which is wholly untenable and against the provisions of the Pan Masala Packaging Machine Rules, 2008, read with Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. The only finding on the date of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 17/07/2008 and that onus to prove that Sada Pan Masala was actually manufactured/produced by the appellant during July, 2008 was on the Department. Further, against the confirmed demand of 1.14 Crore, the imposition of penalty Rs. 10,000/- is not correct and accordingly revenue have prayed for enhancement of the penalty. 7. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 8. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that the only thing revenue found on the date of inspection was that the appellant was having packing material lying in the storeroom having MRP of Rs. 1.50. Accordingly, we find that the revenue have not found anything in contrast to the declaration filed by the appellant on 10th July, 2008 in form-1, as required und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
