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

2024 (7) TMI 182

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e is on the basis of evidence placed or it is to be presumed that the same has to be taken up from the 1st April, 2012 in the absence of any material evidence? HELD THAT:- The fact of sale of machine by M/s Hindustan Machines has been verified. During investigation, it was found that M/s Hindustan Machines have sold the machine on 16.03.2012. The Revenue has alleged that this is a afterthought. It is found that the investigation was done on 29.03.2012 and the invoices has been produced on 02.04.2012, which is within 2 or 3 days, but no evidence has been produced by the Revenue that the said invoice is not genuine as on the said invoices, the supplier of the machine has paid the VAT. In that circumstances, the premise goes benefit of doubt i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Chewing Tobacco and Manufactured Tobacco Packing Machines Rules, 2010 in an unregistered premise at village Paralsingha, Kesinga, Kalahandi without obtaining registration under Section 6 of the Act and Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules and without giving due intimation to the department as required under Rule 6 of the Rules of the Chewing Tobacco and Manufactured Tobacco Packing Machines Rules, 2010. 2.1 Acting upon the said intelligence on 29.03.2012, the premises of the appellants were searched and found one packing machine running producing branded chewing tobacco (Khaini) under the brand name Surya Chhap Arunadaya Special Bhang of MRP Rs.2/-. On the front side of the said khaini pouches, the name and photograph of Bishnu Charan Gh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to his residential premises and undertook the repair, procured some empty pouches from M/s Arunodaya Tobacco, which was lying for a long period as unused. The machine, thereafter, was installed and commenced production from 22.03.2012. The appellant has neither intimated nor paid any duty on their production. 2.6 After investigation, the machine, vehicle and the goods were seized and a verification of invoices was also done with the supplier of the machine, who stated that he has sold the same machine on 16.03.2012, which was procured by him from M/s Bedi Traders on 04.03.2012 as scrap packing machine and the same further repairing and functional condition, was also sold to the appellant. 2.7 On the basis of the said investigation, a show- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... T 720 (Tri.-Del.). He also relies on the decision of the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur II Vs. Jupiter Industries reported in 2006 (206) ELT 1195 (Raj.). 4. On the other hand, the ld.A.R. for the Revenue, drew our attention the adjudication order and states that the appellant has produced the invoices later on, which is fabricated one, therefore, the demand is rightly confirmed. 5. Heard both the parties and considered the submissions. 6. We find that the demand has been confirmed in terms of Rule 18 (2) of the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco, Packing Machine (Capacity Determination and Calculation of Duty) Rules, 2010 on the premises that if the appellant has failed to prove the d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ld that the appellant is liable to pay duty in terms of Rule 18 (2) of the Rules w.e.f. 22.03.2012 onwards and the same is liable to pay by the appellant along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty is also payable by the appellant. 7. As the appellant has been able to demonstrate that the machine has been purchased by them on 16.03.2012, the same has been installed in their factory. The same view has been taken by the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jupiter Industries (supra), wherein it has been held that when there is no production in relation to machine, which is not in existence, therefore, the duty cannot be demanded for the period prior to installation of machine. 8. In this case, the appellant has been able to pr .....

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