9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er (Judicial) Shri Jatin Mahajan (Advocate) - for Appellant Shri Mohd. Altaf (Dy. Commr.) AR - for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant have resorted to any clandestine removal. 2. The allegation as per the show cause notice dated 02/08/2007 is that, the appellant is registered manufacturer, engaged in manufacturing of biscuits in the brand name Parle G Biscuits which are dutiable under Chapter Sub-heading 19059020 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 biscu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, in RG-1 the appellant have not shown quantity of loose biscuits in the respective column. The appellant have made entries regarding destruction on 19/20 July, 2006. It appeared that the appellant have amended records and accordingly, they were required to show cause as to why duty amounting to ₹ 79,762/- should not be recovered and further penalty was proposed under Rule 25 of CER, 2002. The SCN was adjudicated on contest vide Order-in-Original dated 30 th May, 2008 by the Assistant Commissioner, 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 Orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cenvat credit involved in the waste quantity have already been reversed vide Debit Entry No.210 dated 03/07/2006 in the Cenvat Account. The quantity of spoiled ingredients, as per earlier intimation, where intimated in the form of boxes for ease of understanding only. The Learned Counsel further states that the whole show cause notice is presumptive there is no evidence or material on record, leading to any adverse inference. Further, there is no evidence of any clandestine activity or clandestine removal found 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 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
