9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (7) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A and also imposed personal penalty of Rs. 1000/- on the appellants under Rule 210 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The facts in brief are that the cross-checking of records of the appellants who are wholesale dealers in tobacco, the Departmental Officer found that they had manufactured unbranded chewing tobacco during the period 1-7-1982 to 8-11-1983 and had cleared the same without payment of duty and without accounting for the goods in the statutory record RG 12 Register. It was found that during the relevant period, they were holding Central Excise Licence for manufacture of branded chewing jarda. As per the Notification No. 34/79-C.E., unbranded chewing tobacco manufactured by a manufacture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held to be a processed tobacco. He also noted that it was used for chewing purposes. He also gave finding that from the prices of branded chewing Jarda and the prices of Mohite Jarda No.l and 2, the latter was sold at much higher prices and from this concluded that it cannot be believed that what was sold was not treated with foreign materials. The demand for duty was confirmed and penalty imposed in the ultimate adjudication that is passed by the Additional Collector which is now under appeal before the Tribunal. 2. When the appeal was called none was present for the appellants who have by a letter dated 5-9-1991 stated that their financial condition is not good for them to be present for the hearing with their Consultant and that the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amounted to a process of manufacture bringing the goods under Tariff Item 411(5) since they are used for chewing purposes. The price difference which is noted by the Additional Collector is also a clear pointer to the fact that the tobacco is processed tobacco. The learned Senior Departmental Representative further contended that the appellants have relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Pune v. Jaikisan Tobacco Co., Pune reported in 1986 (23) E.L.T. 184 (Tribunal) which is not factually parallel to the present case because in the present case the process of beating whole leaf tobacco into broken leaf has been carried on by the appellants. 3. The submissions made by both the parties have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal found that the respondents therein were right in saying that the scheme Central Excise Tariff taxes only the manufactured variety of chewing tobacco and not raw-tobacco though the latter may also be used for chewing only. Further in this case it is found that this is a confirmation of decision of the Collector (Appeals) which was cited and relied upon by the appellants before the adjudicating authority. The Additional Collector has also in his order not shown by evidence that the tobacco at the hands of the appellants has been treated with additional ingredients. The Trade Notice 139/81 of the Pune Collectorate has given a list of ingredients for the manufacture of chewing tobacco products for the purpose of accountal in RG-12 Reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
