9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lhotra, Advocate for the appellant Shri G.M.Sharma, AR for the respondent ORDER Per Ashok Jindal The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order. 2. The facts of the case are that on the basis of intelligence, the DGCEI officers searched the premises of various dealers located in Coimbatore, Hyderabad, Tiruneveli and Tirur on 21.02.2011 found that the appellant manufactured Filter Cigarettes of Fursat and Seven-10 brand manufactured by M/s.Inderjit Sons Enterprises was found available without any legitimate bills. As the dealers could not produce evidence of legitimate purchase of said stock of cigarettes, the same was seized. Further investigation was conducted on the basis of investigation, it was alleged that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the end of various dealers who were having stock of brand Seven-10. The appellant is not manufacturing cigarettes of Seven-10 brand and they are only manufacturing the cigarettes under the brand name Fursat. The demand has been raised on both brand names against the appellants on the premise that the dealers in whose custody the goods found could not explain the source of procurement of the goods without payment of duty. In fact, the appellant is under physical control of the Central Excise Department. Therefore, it cannot be alleged that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of clandestine removal of the goods. Moreover, the similar issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of Musk Tobacco (India) Pvt.Ltd.-2013 (289) ELT 161 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leging clandestine production and removal of sugar, there cannot be any allegation relating to clandestine production and removal of molasses. In other words, the department s case has no legs to stand on its own. Consequently, the department s allegation has no corroborative evidence to support its case. Since molasses is a controlled item, both under the Central Excise law and also under the State excise laws, there cannot be any clandestine production and removal without the same being noticed by the State excise authorities. As rightly contended by the assessee, no case has been made against them by the State excise authorities who issued transport permits for the assessee to remove molasses to their distillery. The least that the depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... There has to be tangible evidence before a conclusion can be drawn in respect of production and clearance of goods. Any conclusion drawn on the basis of inferences involving unwarranted assumptions are vitiated by an error of law. Further, in the case of molasses, the State excise authorities have a physical control and special supervising staff are posted in the factory and distillery unit to safeguard the case of State excise revenue on molasses and allied products. The State excise authorities, in this case, have not made any allegation of shortage of molasses or any unaccounted production of molasses. In view of this position, when there is a physical control of the department of State excise and also records based control by the Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
