TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (7) TMI 196
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7-8-2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur. Since the issue in both the appeals is the same, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Shri D.N. Mehta, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellants and submitted that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of chewing tobacco falling under Chapter Heading 2404.40 of the Schedule to the Centr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as on 1.12.97 whereas the actual on physical verification was found to be 1592 Kgs. He drew my attention to para 6 of the Order-in-Original wherein Shri Anand Prakash Arora, Proprietor of M/s. Arora Products in his voluntary statement tendered under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, on 18-2-97 admitted that the goods which were accounted after their packing at the time of physical verif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the appellant's factory while deciding the matter rather than dismissing this plea out of hand; that the lower authorities ought to have taken the extenuating circumstances of the case in deciding the matter and accordingly refrained from taking a harsh view of the matter by not only demanding duty without taking due note of the explanation regarding the shortage, the existence of rava and mot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd another case reported in 2000 (117) E.L.T. 644; he contended that the sole proprietary firm and its proprietor cannot be treated as different entity and as such it would not be legally permissible to impose penalty both on the firm and on the sole proprietor; that in order to prove clandestine removal, positive proof is required as held in Kothari Products Ltd. and Others reported in 1999 (82) ....