9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (3) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceedings in the matter were initiated against the appellants consequent on the recovery of documents and the statements recorded from the concerned persons and it was alleged that the appellants had been clearing beedies clandestinely manufactured without payment of duty. The learned lower authority after taking into consideration the evidence regarding un-accounted purchase of tobacco and issue of the same to various contractors and other records seized from the appellants came to the conclusion that the appellants had indulged in large scale evasion of duty. The learned lower authority also took note of the normal trade practice in the beedi trade in regard to the manufacture of beedies and in the case of M/s. Mayin Beedi Company, in par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . As such if any verification was possible, the quantity available with each and every beedi roller would have to be verified but there again most of it would have been already used, part in process and part in stock and it would be impracticable to cause any minute verification particularly in respect of contractors having a number of workers. Most of them would be doing work at their homes also. It is in this context that the depositions given by them become relevant. Even assuming verification was possible, it would have been possible only if the contractors had been maintaining proper accounts of receipt of beedi tobacco and issue to the workers. Contractor like Shri Nanu who employed 25 persons admittedly had not been maintaining EB 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in this connection he referred us to the adjudicating Order No. 116/86, dated 26-12-1986 passed in the case of M/s. Yogi Beedi Works and Others. He pleaded, in that case while the beedies were manufactured by the contractors. M/s. Yogi Beedi Works have been alleged to have supplied of the tobacco to the contractors, the same adjudicating authority in that case held the contractors as the manufacturer of the beedies and duty demand against M/s. Yogi beedi Works was dropped. He pleaded that the contractors are manufacturers in their own right holding L2 and L4 licences with premises marked and approved and they are also required to maintain RG12 register Part III etc. He pleaded that the learned lower authority instead of examining the issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tment of the State Government. He further pleaded that just because there was some discrepancy in the stock of the beedies, the appellants should not have been vested with the consequences in respect of beedies which were not manufactured by them. He pleaded that the contractors were located far away from the appellants premises. 4. In view of the above plea of the learned Advocate it was put to the learned Departmental Representative as to whether the same adjudicating authority had taken a different view, as pleaded by the appellants in that case, he sought for time for instructions. The learned D.R. informed after taking instructions that the said order of the Collector had not been reviewed or appealed against and further clarified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d disposal of unlabelled beedies 2. R.G. 12 A 3. G.P. 1. When duty on unlabelled beedies was introduced it was a general permission that was granted to all existing beedi manufacturers who receive unlabelled beedies as their trade practice. Subsequently when Rule 95A was introduced, the movement of unlabelled beedies was regulated under that Rule without granting another specific permission to such existing beedi manufacturers. M/s. Mayin Beedi Company, being an old manufacturers of beedies, falls in this category." The learned J.D.R. pleaded that there was ample evidence to show the manufacture of beedies out of unaccounted quantities of tobacco supplied to the contractors and supply of the same to the appellants and pointed out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll however have to be considered differently as in respect of those quantities of tobacco in respect of which under the Rules there is no binding on the principal manufacturer to discharge their duty liability, the fact of contractor being the manufacturer cannot apparently be ignored. The learned lower authority has also, as mentioned earlier, held the contractors as the manufacturer in a similar case. Incidently the same adjudicating officer has passed this order and the earlier order. The earlier order passed has not been reviewed or taken on appeal before the Tribunal and the same appears to have been accepted by the Department as reflective of the correct position of law. It is, therefore, necessary that the learned lower authority sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
