2004 (3) TMI 524

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... der]. In the present appeal, the appellant has challenged confirmation of demand of duty of Rs. 1,22,897.84 (Rupees one lakh twenty-two thousand eight hundred ninety-seven and paise eighty-four only) and imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 1,22,897.84 (Rupees one lakh twenty-two thousand eight hundred ninety-seven and paise eighty-four only). 2. The above order has been passed on the grou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the same is dumped in the shape of garbage. 3. There is no obligation on the appellant to keep the waste and scrap in their factory inasmuch as the same is neither debitable nor being sold by them. Sometimes such waste is taken by some people free of cost for various uses. He submits that on the above grounds itself it is not justified to conclude that such waste, which was not actually present .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... anded chewing tobacco which was removed without payment of duty . However, he upheld the order of the original adjudicating authority by observing that But at the same time the appellant could not produce any evidence that the said quantity was lying in the factory as waste . It is seen that the appellant was under no legal obligation to keep the said waste in their factory for all times to come. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X