9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 020 of the first schedule to CETA, 1985. The appellant submitted an application/information dated 03/07/2006 to the Revenue informing that they are required to destroy 1214 cartons of 50gm/packet, 1216 cartons of 100gm/packets and 2595Kg of loose biscuits as the same were not fit for human consumption/sales. In response, the Revenue asked them to submit a fresh application stating the value and Central Excise duty involved and the, reasons for rendering the same not fit for human consumption vide its letter dated 20/07/2006. Thereafter the Revenue officers visited the factory of the appellant on 8th August 2006 and found no stock of such biscuits in the factory. On being asked the director of the appellant Mr. Sanjai Ratnani stated that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was pleased to confirm the proposed demand with equal amount of penalty under Rule 25 of CER, 2002. 3. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred appeal before this Tribunal who has been pleased to reject the appeal vide the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant states that rejection of some biscuits is a normal feature in the biscuit industry. Further, the appellant manufactures under contract for Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. Under the terms of contract, the appellant is required to clear the goods only to Parle, as the goods are manufactured under the Parle brand. The rejected biscuits due to defect in quality are separately stored and have to be disposed of, in consultation and as per directions of Parle Biscuits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by Revenue, accordingly, Learned Counsel prays for allowing the appeal with consequential benefits. 5. The Learned A.R. for Revenue have relied on the impugned order. 6. Having considered the rival contentions, I observe that occurrence of rejects and/or process loss is a normal feature in the biscuit industry. I further find that appellant had given proper intimation to the Revenue Authority of the proposed destruction and the same was destroyed after about two weeks from the date of such intimation. Further, I find that there is no evidence on record of any clandestine activity and/or attempted removal on the part of the appellant. The whole show cause notice is presumptive and accordingly, I hold that it is not maintainable. According ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
