9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e manufacturers. Department has adopted a short-cut method by demanding the duty of the entire 63,346 bags reflected in the 13 unloading registers and gate registers. But the fact remains that the respondent-assessee was having the brand name of “Rajshree” and “Safal” and responsible to pay the duty on its trade marked stock only. The bags containing these trade marks were counted by the adjudicating authority for the purpose of duty. So, the duty was levied only on 2404 bags which were having the trade mark of “Rajshree” and “Safal” brand (in code also). The respondent-assessee is not for the duty payment for the brands which were not manufactured by them - there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chines. The gutka was transported to Chhattisgarh through M/s. Supreme Road Transport Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter known as M/s. Supreme). 3. On 17/18-10-2006, a search was conducted at the two godowns of M/s. Supreme situated at Raipur. Both those godowns were located at Mahadev Ghat Chowk; and near Indian Oil Depot Ring Road No. 1, respectively. The search was conducted in the presence of the Director of M/s. Supreme. During search, stock of nine bags lying in the godown were found. Three vehicles were also found parked in the premises of the godown, where gutka was loaded. As per the details given in the impugned order, the total bags of 2404 were found having the mark of Rajshree and Safal brand manufactured by the assessee-respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntioned in the registers of M/s. Supreme belongs to the assessee-respondent. Hence, the adjudicating authority has wrongly dropped the partly demand. 4.2 On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondent-assessee Shri Rupesh Kumar relied on the impugned order. He submits that the appellant has only fifty machines even if had it run in three shifts basis then capacity of 12325 bags can have been produced per month so, it is wrong that entire stock mentioned in the register belongs to the respondent-assessee, as this quantity cannot be manufactured by the respondent-assessee. He also submits that entries of gutka of trade brand i.e. Goa 1000/Talab/Kuber Moolchand, etc. were also found during the search which never belongs to the responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the code were mentioned. In the instant case, the department has not checked the manufacturing capacity of the manufacturing assessee and also the vouchers at the time of booking the gutka from Delhi. The entire duty demand was based on the entries made in the unloading registers and gate registers. 7. It may be mentioned that M/s. Supreme was also transporting gutka of other companies which were having the different trademarks like Goa 1000/Talab/Kuber Moolchand, etc. No attempt was made by the department to examine the records of these manufacturers. Department has adopted a short-cut method by demanding the duty of the entire 63,346 bags reflected in the 13 unloading registers and gate registers. But the fact remains that the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
