9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 434X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... co. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has adequately dealt with various issues raised by the appellants in the impugned order, in which he has observed as follows :- "I have carefully considered the record. I find that branded unmanufactured tobacco was seized from both the parties on 16-3-1995. They are also asked vide department's letter dated 16-3-1995 to get themselves registered and to pay duty. Both appellants vide their letters dated 27-3-1995 informed the department that they had stopped printing any brand name on the packets since 16-3-95 and that they would not put any brand, in future, and hence they were not liable to pay C. Ex. Duty. Vide the same letters they had also sought for permission to remove the seized tobacco w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elation to the goods and having been admitted for identifying the goods as of the appellants, the Addl. Commissioner was justified in holding the goods as brand in them of Note 1 to Chapter 24 of C. Ex. Tariff. Commr. (A)'s Order No. 95/64 & 62/SRI/97, dated 7-4-1997 dealt with goods affixed with generic name "Pandharpuri" and facts of this case are quite different. It is thus observed that both the appellants removed branded unmanufactured tobacco, that they had misdeclared to the department vide their letter dated 27-3-1995 that they had stopped putting any brand on the packets since 16-3-1995. I do not find any force in appellants contention that putting such symbols did not amount to branding. The appellant's vide their letters dated 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, both the appellants informed the Department that they had stopped printing brand name on the packets w.e.f. 16-3-1995 and further that they would not put any brand on their product in future. However, it was found during visits in February 1996 that they had not adhered to their undertaking and that they were using brand names on the packets. As such, the Commissioner has come to a conclusion that extended time limit is applicable in respect of the demand of duty against the appellants. 4. We are of the view that the Commissioner (Appeals) has passed a correct order in regard to classification of the impugned goods as also on the question of limitation. We are also of the view that the appellants have not made out a case requiring ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
