9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 560X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere taken on rent by the appellant from January, 2011 as per the statement of the owner of premises - it is clear that the appellant was manufacturing the said goods from January, 2011. Waiver of Pre-deposit – Penalty - The appellant has deposited the amount of ₹ 55.50 lakh, which is for the period January, 2011 - the deposit is sufficient for the purpose of section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 - as regard penalty, the appellant was indulging in the clandestine activity for manufacture of pan masala - They are prima facie, liable to penalty inasmuch as the demand of duty for the period to the extent of ₹ 55.50 lakhs has already been deposited, the appellant was directed to deposit further amount of ₹ 55 lakhs towards ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re recorded. It was found that the said premises were taken on rent by the said appellant for the last 3-4 months and were being used for manufacture of pan masala. The statements of various persons were recorded during the course of investigation also revealed that pan masala was being manufactured for the last 3-4 months. 4. On the basis of investigations, conducted by the Revenue a show cause notice dated 3.4.2012 were issued to the appellants proposing confirmation of demand of duty as also for imposition of penalty. It is seen that during the course of adjudication, the appellant took a specific plea that in terms of provisions of Rule 17 (2) of Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said rule has to be interpreted in the manner in which the unit was not found to be working. Inasmuch as during the preceding financial year, the unit admittedly was not working, the financial year has to be the previous financial year i.e. 2010. As such, the Commissioner has rightly confirmed the demand from April, 2010. 6. After considering the submissions made by both sides, and after going through the provisions of Rule 17 (2) of the Rules, which reads as under:- (2) If it is found that goods have been cleared from a unit which is not registered with the jurisdictional Central Excise Office, then the duty liability of such unit shall be determined on the basis of number of packing machines found available in the premises of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... achines were found to be installed were taken on rent by the appellant from January, 2011 as per the statement of the owner of premises. As such, it is clear that the appellant was manufacturing the said goods from January, 2011. The appellant has deposited the amount of Rs.55.50 lakh, which is for the period January, 2011. We consider the said deposit as sufficient for the purpose of section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. However, as regard penalty, we find that the appellant was admittedly indulging in the clandestine activity for manufacture of pan masala. They are prima facie, liable to penalty inasmuch as the demand of duty admittedly for the period to the extent of Rs.55.50 lakhs has already been deposited, we direct the appellant t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
