9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 522X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are manufacturer of Kimam and were clearing the same without payment of duty to their other Units where it was used in the manufacture of Branded Chewing Tobacco. The Branded Chewing Tobacco was cleared on payment of duty. Show cause notices were issued to the appellants for demand of duty in respect of Kimam and for imposing penalties and for confiscation of the seized Kimam. 3. The adjudication authority confirmed the demands and imposed the penalties. The seized goods were also confiscated. 4. The appellants filed appeals before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal vide Final Order Nos. 846-851/99-D, dated 1-10-99 [2002 (150) E.L.T. 871 (T)] uphe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudicating authority that they had produced the documentary evidence to prove that the entire quantities of Kimam were transferred from one Unit to their other Unit and the entire quantities were received in the other Unit and the same were utilised in the manufacture of Branded Chewing Tobacco which were cleared on payment of duty. The appellants had produced the transfer Challans under which the Kimam was transferred to the other Units. They also produced Form IV Register/Stock Register regarding receipt of the Kimam in the other factory where Branded Chewing Tobacco manufactured. The contention of the appellant is also that in the show cause notice it is admitted by the Revenue that Kimam manufactured by the appellants removed to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xamine the issue in the light of the above discussions. Before the adjudicating authority, the appellants produced all the documentary record maintained by them in respect of manufacture of Kimam in question in their one Unit and to the clearance to the other Unit for use in the manufacture of Branded Chewing Tobacco. It is not the case of the Revenue that this evidence is not true. The Revenue rejected the contention of the appellants only on the ground that they had not followed the procedure laid down under Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules. We find that as the appellants were clearing the goods under the impression that these are not excisable goods, therefore, the necessary permission or other procedures which were laid down in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
