TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Order No. 71686/2018 - Dated:- 31-7-2018 - Hon ble Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member ( Judicial ) And Hon ble Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member ( Technical ) Shri Vineet Kumar Singh, Advocate for Appellant Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Additional Commissioner ( AR ), for Respondent ORDER Per : Anil G. Shakkarwar The present appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 74/Commr./LKO/CX/2009 dated 29/12/2009 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Lucknow. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant were engaged in the manufacture of Pan Masala and Pan Masala containing tobacco (Gutkha) falling under Tariff Item No.21069020 24039990 of First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 respectively. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -, 775 kgs of loose Gutkha valued at ₹ 1,40,909/- and packing material valued at ₹ 5,79,840/- were found in the same room. The goods were seized on 08.08.2008. On the basis of said investigation, it appeared to revenue that in respect of said 5 pouch packing machines during the month of July, 2008 appellant did not discharge Central Excise duty amounting to ₹ 62,50,000/-. Therefore, appellants were issued with a show cause notice dated 29.01.2009 calling up to appellant to show cause as to why said seized goods should not be confiscated and why Central Excise duty of ₹ 62,50,000/- on said 5 undeclared pouch packing machines should not be demanded for the month of July, 2008 and why penalty should not be imposed. On c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a recorded on 08.08.2008 and that there is no other evidence that during the month of July, 2008 there were any manufacture out of the said 5 pouch packing machines which were not declared. He has further submitted that Hon ble Gujarat High Court has ruled in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs M/s Saakeen Alloys Pvt. Ltd. reported at 2014 (308) E.L.T. 655 (Guj.) that confessional statements solely in absence of any cogent evidences cannot make the foundation for levying the Excise duty on the ground of evasion of tax. He further submitted that said ruling is squarely applicable in the present case. 4. Learned A.R. for revenue has supported the impugned Order-in-Original. 5. Having considered the rival contentions and on per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
