Appellant ordered to pay Rs. 16,418 duty for illegal manufacturing of Deshi Gutkha. Appeal rejected.

The court confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 16,418 on the appellant for illegal manufacturing of Deshi Gutkha. The appellant's claim of not owning the premises where the goods were seized was dismissed due to lack of evidence and suspicion over the validity of the rent agreement. Duty liability was upheld regardless of goods being confiscated but not redeemed, as the illegal manufacture at unregistered premises invalidated the appellant's arguments. The appellant's appeal was rejected, and duty payment was enforced based on the findings of illegal manufacturing and lack of evidence supporting the appellant's claims.

---

---

Issues:
1. Confirmation of demand of duty on illegal manufacture of Deshi Gutkha.
2. Validity of rent agreement and ownership of premises.
3. Liability for duty payment on confiscated goods.
4. Legal boundaries for duty payment in case of unregistered premises.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The judgment confirms the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 16,418 against the appellant for the illegal manufacture of Deshi Gutkha. The goods were seized from the appellant's premises following a police raid. The Revenue initiated proceedings against the appellant, culminating in the issuance of a show cause notice and subsequent orders by the Adjudicating Authority and Commissioner (Appeals).

Issue 2:
The appellant claimed not to be in possession of the premises where the Gutkha was seized, stating that the premises were rented out to another individual. The rent agreement presented by the appellant, although attested by a Notary, was found to be unregistered and suspected to be a false document. The appellant failed to prove that the goods were not manufactured by them, shifting the burden of proof to establish otherwise.

Issue 3:
Regarding the contention that the goods were confiscated but not redeemed, therefore no duty liability should arise, the Commissioner (Appeals) clarified that duty liability arises upon the manufacture of excisable goods, regardless of the timing of duty payment. In this case, since the goods were manufactured illegally at unregistered premises, the lack of approved boundaries for manufacture, storage, and clearance negated the appellant's argument against duty payment.

Issue 4:
The judgment rejected the appellant's claim of having rented out the premises, affirming the decision of the lower authorities. The absence of evidence to support the appellant's position, combined with the illegal manufacture and lack of approved premises, led to the rejection of the appeal. The duty demand against the appellant was upheld, and the appeal was consequently rejected.

---