9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n respondent filed declaration on 13.08.2014 with the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner under Rule 6 of the Pan Masala Rules for installation of one packing machine w.e.f. 20.08.2014 for production of pan masala. The production capacity of the main respondent was determined. Thereafter, the main respondent vide their letter dated 26.08.2014 requested for sealing of one pouch packing machine w.e.f. 31.8.2014. It was also informed that they will not be producing pan masala w.e.f. 01.09.2014 for 15 days or more. In terms of the above request, the machine was sealed under panchnama on 31.08.2014 by the Jurisdictional Central Excise Officers. Thereafter, based on certain information that the main respondent is resorting to unaccounted manufa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Shri Gupta (second respondent) would show that the appellants have manufactured and cleared pan masala without accounting. The retraction of statements on 19.09.2014 is only an afterthought. The ld AR submitted that the original authority failed to appreciate all the evidences gathered by the officers and erred in dropping the proceedings. 3. The ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the Revenue has no case against them. The whole dispute revolves around the alleged cracking or tempering of the seal put on the machine on 31.08.2014 by the officers as per the request of the respondent. The original authority has correctly referred to the report dated 22.09.2014 of Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. The letter in detail was r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the case for un-accounted clearance being supported by the availability of certain packing materials and finished goods. These aspects have been examined, in detail, by the original authority. Even if there were certain discrepancies in the recital of evidence, we note that a case for clandestine removal of pan masala with the duty liability of Rs. 59.60,000/- can not be made without any basic evidence of actual manufacture and clearance of the impugned goods. In the present case, the incidental stock, circumstantial evidence of availability of small quantity of raw material/goods was the only evidence on which such substantial demand was sought to be confirmed by the Revenue. We note that the original authority has correctly examined t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
