9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 583X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uired to be excluded from the computation of duty. On this issue, the matter is remanded to the Commissioner. Appellant has not produced any documents even before this Tribunal so as to indicate that they have the duty paying documents. However, in the interest of justice, we are giving two months' time from today to produce the duty paying documents used in the manufacture of dutiable cartons, wallets, catch covers etc. and correlate the same (with grammage etc.) to their final products. Such documents will be produced before the jurisdictional Commissioner. Thereafter the Commissioner will examine the claim of the appellant and in case they are entitled to the cenvat credit, extend the same. The balance amount of duty will be paid by the appellant in cash within 30 days from communicating the requantification details. In case the appellants fail to produce the said documents within two months, it will be assumed that they are not claiming cenvat credit and requnatification done. Keeping in view the fact that different copies of the invoices were manipulated, it is a case of fraud and extended period of limitation is correctly involved and is upheld. Penalty under Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants' main contention was that they were not given the relied upon documents and hence they could not participate in the original proceedings. It was found from the order-in-original that the appellants have raised the said plea and thereafter the adjudicating authority had directed the investigating officer to provide the copies of the relied upon documents. Subsequently, on 22.6.2005, the relied upon documents were provided to all the five appellants and thereafter another personal hearing was fixed on 20 th July 2005 and the appellants did not appear for the hearing but again wrote that the documents were not provided. Keeping in view the fact that all the relied upon documents were provided, the case was adjudicating by the original authority. In appeal also, same grievance is made. In view of the grievance made by the learned counsel during hearing on 5.2.2015, authorized representative of the department was directed to find out the correct position and show the proof for handing over the documents. The learned counsel was also directed to give specific list of the documents required by him. At the time of next hearing, the learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The learned counsel also submitted sample copies of the products manufactured by them. 4. The learned AR, on the other hand, submitted that cartons, wallets, catch covers are similar in nature and are meant to keep the goods such as pencils, pharmaceutical goods and condoms. Further, there is essentially no difference between the catch covers, cartons or wallets. It is just the nomenclature given by the appellant or their customers. He further stated that the description in the invoices is inserts and it cannot be said that the same are leaflets. 5. We have considered the submission made by both the sides. We have also seen the sample of the goods. We find that the goods so called as cartons, wallets or catch covers are similar in nature and are meant for packaging of different products. We have also gone through the heading 4817 as also 4819. We find that heading 4817 covers wallets of paper or paperboard containing an assortment of paper stationery. The goods manufactured by the appellant are primarily meant for packaging of condoms, pencils, pharmaceutical items. These will therefore not be covered by the description given in heading 4817. These would be clearly covered un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustry falling under Chapter 49. We find that during investigation, the appellants have not clarified and made such a claim. We also note that the description in all the copies is inserts. An insert can be a leaflet or some other item of cardboard. In the event the inserts are nothing but printed leaflets, then these would not be chargeable to duty and the same would be required to be excluded from the computation of duty. On this issue, the matter is remanded to the Commissioner. The appellants will produce copies of the work order, agreement, invoices etc. so as to support their claim that inserts are nothing but printed leaflets alone. The Commissioner, after going through such documents, will decide whether the same are printed leaflets and, if so, extend the benefit of excise duty on the same. In case so called insert consists of leaflet and other items chargeable to excise duty and separate values are not available, duty will be required to be paid on entire value. Another request of the counsel for the appellant was that since they are required to pay duty, they would be entitled to claim the cenvat credit. We find that the appellant has not produced any documents even before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
