9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or manufacturing of 1000 number of cigarettes at the rate of Rs. 39.22 and was allowed by the Revenue. Subsequently, the appellants claimed that they have used 816 gms. of cut tobacco for 1000 cigarettes instead of 784.30 gms. The higher consumption was sought by the appellant based on some records available with them during relevant period. Show cause notice was issued to the appellant, which on adjudication culminated, against the claim made by the appellant. On an appeal the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and the matter travelled to Tribunal and Tribunal vide Order No. A/89/WZB MUM/2005, dated 28-1-2005, on consent of both sides set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter hack to the Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants. The appeal is allowed by way of remand . It can be seen from the above reproduced portion of our order, that the Order-in-Appeal dated 29-12-2003 was set aside by the Tribunal with the consent of both sides and hence any findings that order-in-appeal may not be of use for appellant s case today. 6. As regards the current order-in-appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 22-12-2005 held as under :- I have carefully considered ground taken in appeal memo; oral submissions made by the appellant and provisions of law governing on the subject matter. The A.C. of Central Excise held that no records or evidence are submitted for higher consumption of cut tobac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise officer. Thus, the Order-in-Original is sustainable without interference . It can be noticed in the above reproduced portion that the Commissioner (Appeals) appreciated the facts of the case and as the appellant is not able to produce any records as regards the consumption of 816 gms. cut tobacco in the manufacture of tobacco number of cigarettes, held against the appellant. Today also the appellant is not able to produce any evidence in support of their claim. 7. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the order-in-appeal of the ld. Commissioner is well a reasoned one in the absence of any evidence to show that the appellant infact consumed 816 gms. of cut tobacco in the manufacture of 1000 cigarett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
