Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (3) TMI 1379

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... i Jhansi Road, New Delhi. On enquiry, the Driver of the vehicle informed that there were 60 bags of Gutkha loaded in the vehicle from the appellant's factory at 6926/C-3, C-5, Jaipuria Mills Complex, Clock tower, Subzi Mandi, Delhi. The officers seized the said goods valued at Rs. 6,08,400/- (Assessable Value) under Panchnama dated 23.08.2003, as the driver could not produce any duty paid documents such as, invoice etc. The Officers also visited the factory premises and the godown located outside the factory and conducted stock taking. It was detected by the Officers that 98 bags containing excisable goods i.e. "SIR" Brand Gutkha valued at Rs. 13,75,920/- were found in Godown No.117 and accordingly, the same were seized on a reasonable beli .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ha valued at Rs. 290,17,080/- was confiscated under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 34 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Since the goods had already been released against execution bond/bank guarantee, the Adjudication Order has imposed fine of Rs. 5,03,640/-. Further, the Adjudication Order also confirmed Central Excise Duty demand of Rs. 38,75,040/- and imposed equal amount of penalty on the appellant. 1.2 On appeal against the Adjudication Order, the ld. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi vide Order-in-Appeal dated 30.03.2007 (for short, referred to as "the Impugned Order") has upheld the Adjudication Order, so far as it confiscated the goods and imposed redemption fine. Howev .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ms of Section 35 B (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and thus, the appeal filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal is not maintainable. In this context, he has relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Japan Airlines International Co. Ltd. - 2015 (39) STR 541 (Del.). On merits of the case, ld. Advocate submitted that since the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded the findings based on the available records and held that charges of clandestine removal cannot be sustained against the respondent; the appeal filed by Revenue is also not maintainable on the ground of proper substantiation regarding the allegations levelled against the respondent. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. 5. At the time of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e has not been complied with. While answering to the question framed in Appeal, the Hon'ble High Court held that the Tribunal cannot examine the issue beyond the factum as to whether or not a decision has been taken by a Committee of Commissioners to institute the appeal. The relevant paragraphs in the said judgement are extracted herein below:- "11. Therefore, having regard to the above, which is, that in our opinion, the decision rendered by the Committee of Commissioners is an administrative function, it would, to our minds, therefore, not require the members of the Committee to meet, consult and give independent reasons, as contended before us by Mr. Mittal. 11.1 In our view, a meeting and/or consultation is not mandatory so long as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... such aspects and dropped the duty demand confirmed on the appellant. I also find that the employees of the transporters, who had booked the goods described as "scented supari" under the consignment notes have never admitted that they have received the goods from the respondent and that on their physical verification, they had found any "Gutkha" manufactured by the respondent. Thus, it is evident that there was no material evidence to suggest that the bags under the alleged relevant consignment notes had been booked by the respondent. The Department in this case, had not produced any cogent, tangible and convincing evidence in support of clandestine removal of goods and as such, the adjudged demand cannot be confirmed on the basis of mere a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates