9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he facts of the case are that an intelligence was gathered that the appellants were engaged in clandestine operation of Form, Fill & Seal (FFS) for packing machine in contravention of the provisions of 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 pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 2nd April, 2012, the Appellant No.(1) intimated that the said packing machine was purchased on 16.03.2012 from M/s Hindustan Machine, Shantinagar Villa at a cost of Rs.25,000/- and brought the said machine 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... long with interest. To support his contention, he relies on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Goyal Tobacco Co.Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Jaipur I reported in 2017 (348) ELT 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 confir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble to produce the invoices of the machine on 16.03.2012, which might have been installed within a week time and the claim of the appellant is that they have started production on 22.03.2012. In that circumstances, we hold 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
