9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 1,74,25,000/- against M/s. Gujrati Tambakhuwala (GT) along with imposition of penalty of identical amount on the allegation and finding of clandestine clearances. In addition, penalties stand imposed upon the other appellants who are connected the said unit. 3. M/s. GT is engaged in the manufacture of tobacco. They were also trading in said product. The said unmanufactured tobacco was claimed to being packed by them in pouch of Rs. 2/- per pouch and Rs. 10/- per pouch with the help of the hand sealer. As per the appellant, they purchased one old and used electric run pouch packing machine in the year 2002, with the help of which the pouches were sealed. However, the said machine was sealed by the officers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not physically present during the proceedings. As such, he submits that the entire case of the Revenue is on wrong premise. 7. Opposing the prayer, Shri M.R. Sharma, learned DR appearing for the Revenue submits that fact of sealing the machine at 4-5 different points is not evidenced from the records. Admittedly, when the machines were initially sealed on 03.03.2010, the panchnama was drawn and there is no mention in the said panchnama of the sealing of machines at 5-6 points. Similarly, when the panchnama was drawn on 15.07.2011, on the date of visit of officers and one seal was found to be broken, there is no mention of the presence of another 5-6 seals on the said machine. Panchnama was drawn in the presence of witness as also in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hine in question was sealed, did not refer to the fact that seal was being put at different places. Not only the appellant never questioned or contested the drawing of panchnama on 15.07.2010 and never brought the fact of presence of other seals on the machines before the concerned officers or even after the visit of officers. If the machine in question was also sealed at other 5-6 points and could not have been run by the appellant, no reasonable prudent man would have brought the above fact to the notice of the visiting officer or immediately thereafter to the concerned or senior officers, in which case the officers would have visited their factory to verify the above contention of the appellant. Having not done so, the appellant raised t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
