TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 871X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out paying any duty in the clandestine manner. When it is so, then then there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Matter remanded to the original authority to verity whether there was any manufacturing activity for the period Jan. to May 2013 or not and levy the duty and penalty for this period, accordingly, but by providing reasonable opportunity to the appellant. - Appeal No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 29.1.2014, where two pouch packing machines, raw material and finished goods were found. The Hathi Chhap brand was used by the appellant. On the basis of the seized material, a case of the clandestine removal has been made. Penalty was also imposed on the appellants. Being aggrieved, the appellants have filed the present appeals. 3. With this background, heard Shri B.K. Singh. The ld. Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able so the duty demand for this period is against the law. He also submits that no opportunity was provided for cross examination of Shri Raju Khan alias Mohammad Hussain which is the violation of the natural law as per the ratio laid down in the case of K.K. Sales Vs. CCE, Delhi-II 2017 (345) ELT 540 (Tri.-Del.). To support his arguments, he also relied on the ratio laid down in the case of La ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we are of the view that in the instant case, Sh. Kuldeeep Billaiya, the appellant was engaged in the manufacturing of chewing tobacco. He engaged two persons namely Bhola and Shri Mohammad Hussain Alias Raju Khan, for the purpose. Hathi Chhap tobacco was prepared in the factory and packed in the pouches of ₹ 2/- and 5/- each and the same was sold. The statement of the concerned persons were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facturing activity. For this limited purpose, we remand the matter to the original authority to verity whether there was any manufacturing activity for the period Jan. to May 2013 or not and levy the duty and penalty for this period, accordingly, but by providing reasonable opportunity to the appellant. Except it, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order which is hereby sustained alo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
