9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... G.R. Singh, Authorized Representative (DR) for the respondent ORDER Per. B. Ravichandran The appellant is before us against order dated 01/01/2013 of Commissioner (Appeals), Delhi II. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of pan masala liable to Central Excise duty. Officers of Central Excise Intelligence visited the premises of the appellant in February 2011 and conducted certain verif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne of Rs. 4,00,000/- 2. On appeal, the said order was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. We find that the Betel Nut seized during the visit of the officers is the raw material for the appellant. The confiscation of the said Betel Nut was ordered by the lower Authorities in terms of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able to confiscation and the producer or manufacturer or registered person of the warehouse or a registered dealer, as the case may be, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the duty on the excisable goods in respect of which any contravention of the nature referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) has been committed, or [rupees two thousand], whichever is greater. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect that the appellants failed to submit statements regarding details of Betel Nut and thereby violated the provisions of Rule 12 (2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. As such, the confiscation was upheld. We find that even if it is a violation of the Notification No. 3/2007-CE (NT) mandating the submission of statement of raw material including Betel Nut, failure to do so can at best result in impos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
