9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (4) TMI 423X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intendent apparently did not agree with this view and replied to the appellant on 3-4-1987. The counsel for the appellant states that this letter was not available. The appellant by its letter of 14-4-1987 said "We enclose a note on dehydration of foods by Marcus Karel which specifically says that potato chips are one of the major food products dehydrated on a large scale... Consequently, the product gets excluded from Chapter 20 of the Central Excise Tariff, 1987-88 which specifically excludes dehydrated products... However, potato wafers are covered under Chapter 20 but excluded for the purpose of excise duty." The department still did not agree and ultimately the manufacturer applied for a licence under protest on 19-4-1987. The show cau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cus Karel which the appellant cited to the department. The counsel for the appellant was unable to state categorically that in the process employed by the appellant only dehydration of potato chips was involved. He also did was not agreeable to the suggestion that the matter could be adjourned in order for the manufacturing process to be furnished. He said the matter is very old and since the concerned unit is closed, the manufacturing process would not be available. He was also unable to produce the note by Marcus Karel. 4. Chapter 20 of the tariff is for preparations of fruits, nuts or other parts of plants. Note 1 to this chapter provides that the chapter "covers only products which are prepared or preserved by processes other than ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcluded. When, as is very clear the process involves not only dehydration, such a deliberate attempt to mislead the department called for a salutary penalty. 6. The Assistant Collector has confirmed the duty of Rs. 1.93 lakhs. The reason he advances for low penalty is the assessee's intention is "trustworthy towards payment of duty. It is utterly beyond my comprehension how, on the facts before him, the Assistant Collector could have come to this conclusion. I have already noted the deliberate attempt by the appellant to mislead the department by feeding half-truths to it. Despite at least two letters from the department for the appellant to take a licence, it needed a show cause notice before it commenced paying duty. I am surprised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
