9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 361X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich was under physical control of the respondent has been confirmed for the period January 2007 to October 2011 by issuance of the show cause notice dated 31.1.2012 and imposition of penalty on all the appellants. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant M/s. International Tobacco Co. Ltd. is wholly owned subsidiary engaged in manufacture of cigarette and cut tobacco on behalf of M/s. Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. The other two appellants are former Deputy General Manager (Accounts) and Senior Quality Assurance Manager. During the period January 2007 to October 2011, the appellant's factory was under physical control of the Central Excise Department. To achieve highest quality, the appellant maintains in-house quality control la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umbers of such trays were loaded on one trolley, and the trolley was moved from the making section to the packing hall for packing of cigarette. Considering the appellant's higher production capacity, the appellant faced scenarios where one trolley, containing trays having cigarettes of more than one brand in each such tray, which led to brand mixing at the time of packing of cigarettes. To avoid the same, from January 2007 onwards, appellant has adopted the process wherein the packing machine operator picks up one cigarette from each tray (having 4000 cigarettes) and pastes such cigarette on the flattened pieces of shell of cigarette packet kept with the trolley. Only after such pasting, the trays were loaded on a packing machine for packi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inable. With regard to the demand for the period January 2007 till 24.4.2009, the appellant submitted that the activity of the appellant was known to the Department as the unit of the appellant was under physical control of the Central Excise Department. Therefore, the show cause notice dated 31.1.2012 is barred by limitation. The appellant reserved his rights to argue the issue on merits. 7. On the other hand, learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 8. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 9. After examining the records, we find that the disputed period is January 2007 to October 2011 and it is the contention of the appellant that w.e.f. 24.4.2009 the appellant has stopped such practice, therefore, no deman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
