9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (5) TMI 214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and. The period involved along with the respective date of show cause notices and the amount of duty and penalty in this appeal are as follows : S. NO. APPEAL NO. STAY NO. PERIOD SCN DATED DUTY RS. PENALTY RS. LACS 1. E/753-R/98 E/Stay-472-R/98 April 95 to March 96 15-7-1996 Rs. 74,69,228/- Rs. 50.00 lacs 2. E/574-R/98 E/Stay-473-R/98 April 96 to June 96 2-9-1996 Rs. 25,30,990/- Rs. 25.00 lacs 3. E/575-R/98 E/Stay-474-R/98 July 96 to Sept. 96 27-11-1996 Rs. 24,33,31/- Rs. 5.00 lacs 4. E/576-R/98 E/Stay-475-R/98 Oct. 96 to Dec. 96 5-5-1997 Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsel also relied upon the Judgement of the Madras High Court in the case of State of Madras v. Bell Mark Tobacco Co. 1967 XIX STC 129, wherein the High Court has given the details of the process by which Chewing Tobacco is produced. The applicants process is not at all comparable with the narration in the High Court order; therefore the material at the hands of the applicant cannot be held to be chewing tobacco. On limitation the ld. Counsel referred to their letter to the department dated 6-1-1996 during the relevant period to this case addressed to the Superintendent Central Excise wherein they have informed the Department that they are buying raw tobacco for the market and the mixing with Kimam. It is then cured and subjected to further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they have requested that the demand in respect of show cause notices with which the appeals are concerned are not correct, even if the product is held to be excisable goods. This letter was received on the same day by the department, but has not been dealt with and considered in the impugned order. The goods being captively consumed are exempt according to this notification and thereby the demand in respect of these three show cause notices will have to be dropped. The ld. Counsel further submitted that in respect of the two other appeals the demand is partly hit by limitation in E/573-R/98, amount within the normal period in the cases with which only to Rs. 10,69,228/- out of the total duty of Rs. 74,69,228/-. Even after including the dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the claim for exemption under Notification No. 10/96 is concerned there is no doubt the applicants have made claim for notification at a belated stage, but the record shows that letter claiming this notification has been received on 19-9-1997. The impugned order has been finalised and passed only on 28-10-1997 and apparently the papers were not linked for being considered by the adjudicating authority. Prima facie we are of the view that the notification has relevance to the applicants claim since the goods are admittedly consumed captively by the applicants in the manufacture of Gutkha. Therefore so far as these three demands in these appeals are concerned, there is a prima facie case for granting stay, and it is ordered accordingly. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
