9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being supported by the availability of certain packing materials and finished goods - Held that: - Even if there were certain discrepancies in the recital of evidence, a case for clandestine removal of pan masala with the duty liability of ₹ 59.60,000/- can not be made without any basic evidence of actual manufacture and clearance of the impugned goods - 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 - the original authority has correctly examined the evidences and concluded that no case against the respondent could be established. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent. On conclusion of the investigation, proceedings were initiated through issue of two SCNs on 13.03.2015 and 23.04.2015 proposing confiscation of seized raw material and finished goods and to demand Central Excise duty of ₹ 59,60,000/- alongwith imposition of penalties under various provisions of Central Excise Law. On adjudication of these notices, the original authority issued the impugned order. He dropped the proceedings against respondents. Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue filed these appeals. 2. Elaborating the grounds of appeal, the ld. AR submitted that though the pouch packing machine was sealed by the officers on 31.08.2014, the evidences gathered by the officers on 15/16.09.2014 indicated that the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clearance of pan masala. The availability of small quantity of packing material and finished goods have been duly explained by the respondent and the same has been analyzed and recorded by the original authority. In the present appeal, the Revenue did not bring out any material evidence to contradict the findings of the original authority. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused appeal records. 5. The respondent requested for sealing their machine on 31.08.2014. The same has been done as per the standard practice by the Jurisdictional Officers. The original authority has given detailed finding regarding the nature of seal and the practice followed in similar such cases. He categorically recorded that when officers visited the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
