TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Upholds Duty Demand in Tobacco Case Appeal</h1> <h3>M/s. Gujarati Tambakhuwala, Irshad Hussain, Abul Faiz, Muktar Hussain Versus CCE, Raipur</h3> The Tribunal upheld the duty demand and penalties in an appeal against an Order-in-Original confirming duty demand for clandestine clearances by a tobacco ... Clandestine removal - penalty - manufacture of tobacco - whether the packing machine found in the appellant’s premises was operational or not? - Held that: - The panchnama drawn by the officers on the date of their visit clearly reveals that the machine was in running condition and the appellant was engaged in the production of unmanufactured tobacco - there is nothing in the said panchnama to suggest that packing machine in question was sealed at different points - On 15.07.2011, the single machine in the appellant’s factory was found not sealed and operational. As per the provisions of the Rules, duty is required to be paid on quantity of pouches deemed to be produced on the basis of the number of operational packing machines installed in factory. As per these rules, the actual quantity of goods manufactured is immaterial. As on 15.07.2011, one packing machine was found to be operational. Consequently duty is liable to be paid as prescribed for one packing machine. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. Issues:Appeals against Order-in-Original confirming duty demand and penalties for clandestine clearances.Analysis:The appeals were filed against Order-in-Original No. 49/2013 confirming a duty demand of Rs. 1,74,25,000 against a company engaged in tobacco manufacturing and trading, with penalties imposed on connected appellants. The main issue revolved around the sealing and operation of a packing machine used for tobacco pouches. The officers found the machine sealed in 2010 but operational in 2011, leading to proceedings and the impugned order.The appellant's advocate argued that the machine was sealed at multiple points in 2010, so it couldn't have been operational in 2011 with just one seal broken. He also contested the panchnama's validity, highlighting discrepancies in witness presence. On the contrary, the Revenue's representative refuted the multiple seal claim, citing consistent electricity usage and statements admitting machine use. They maintained that the machine was operational in 2011, justifying the duty demand and penalties.The Tribunal analyzed the evidence and concluded that the machine was indeed operational in 2011 based on the panchnama and laborers' activities. There was no mention of multiple seals in the records, and the appellant failed to raise the issue during or after the officers' visit. Given the duty payment rules for operational machines, the duty demand for the period was upheld, supported by electricity usage data. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, affirming the impugned order.In summary, the Tribunal's decision hinged on the machine's operational status in 2011, disregarding the appellant's late claim of multiple seals. The duty demand was upheld based on the rules governing packing machines and consistent electricity consumption. The judgment highlighted the importance of timely objections and adherence to procedural requirements in such cases.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
