9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the Appellant. Further, it has been recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) that there is no evidence on record to show that the Appellant had manufactured the said goods. Department is of the view that the Appellant had gotten the impugned goods manufactured from somewhere else and was operating under the guise of being a simple trader. However, since the Department has failed to bring any evidence on record to establish that the Appellant was indeed manufacturing the said goods or getting the same manufactured from some other manufacturing unit, the burden of discharging Central Excise duty cannot be harnessed on the Appellant - I disagree with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that since the Appellant (not being the manuf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t ₹ 7,35,000 - K.G. Pan Products, Gorakhpur) and Paawan Gold Mouth Freshner (50,000 pcs. Valued at ₹ 50,000 Khemka Herbs and Spices, Kanpur) were recovered. The Appellant failed to produce any documentary evidence with respect to the seized goods. In his statement, the Appellant stated that he had purchased the aforementioned goods from K.G. Pan Products Pvt. Ltd., Gorakhpur without any document through a broker and the payment was made by him in cash. The Department issued summons to the said broker, who was apparently the sales-in-charge in the said company, however, the said person did not produce himself. On 31.10.2015, the Department received a letter from the Director of the company who denied any sale having been made t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ules was also imposed. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Adjudication order. Hence, the present appeal. 4. The ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that the Show Cause Notice had been issued on the basis of assumptions and surmises. It was submitted that the Appellant was not the manufacturer of the impugned goods but only a peddler who procured the said goods and sold them in the open market. It was submitted that since the Appellant was merely a peddler, he could not have been aware of the payment of Central Excise duty which was required to be paid by the manufacturer. It was submitted that the Appellant maintained a stock of the said goods. During the relevant period, ban was imposed on the sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner (Appeals) that there is no evidence on record to show that the Appellant had manufactured the said goods. 8. However, I find that the case of the Department is that since K.G. Pan Products, Gorakhpur was operating under the Compound Levy Scheme, the Central Excise duty had been paid in advance. Therefore, the question of payment of duty at the time of clearance does not arise. Further, as per the report of DC (Preventive), Kanpur, Khemka Herbs and Spices Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur had not been carrying out manufacturing activities for the last 11 months. Therefore, the Department is of the view that the Appellant had gotten the impugned goods manufactured from somewhere else and was operating under the guise of being a simple t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
