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 overturns Commissioner's order due to witness inconsistencies and lack of cross-examination. Remanded for fresh adjudication.</h1> <h3>ROYAL MARWAR TOBACCO PRODUCTS PVT LTD, SHRI KIRANSING PRADHANJI THAKOR, SHRI SHAFI MOHMAD FAIZ MOHMAD PATHAN, SHRI HIMANSHU JASUBHAI SHUKLA, SHRI DIPAK BHOGILAL KOTHARI Versus C.C.E. -AHMEDABAD-II (Vice-Versa)</h3> ROYAL MARWAR TOBACCO PRODUCTS PVT LTD, SHRI KIRANSING PRADHANJI THAKOR, SHRI SHAFI MOHMAD FAIZ MOHMAD PATHAN, SHRI HIMANSHU JASUBHAI SHUKLA, SHRI DIPAK ... Issues Involved:1. Confiscation of goods under Rule 25 (i)(b) & (c) of Central Excise Rules, 2002.2. Demand of duty amounting to Rs. 5.7 crores against the noticees under section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944, and Rule 17 of Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008.3. Imposition of penalty at the rate of Rs. 1.14 crores each against the noticees.4. Demand of interest under section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.5. Imposition of penalty of Rs. 1.14 crores against each noticee.Detailed Analysis:1. Confiscation of Goods:The Commissioner confirmed the confiscation of seized goods valued at Rs. 68,42,940 under Rule 25(1)(b) & (c) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, read with Rule 17(1) of the Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008. This included packing materials, machinery, and finished goods.2. Demand of Duty:The Commissioner confirmed the demand of Rs. 5.7 crores in Central Excise duty against all five noticees in equal proportion (Rs. 1.14 crores each). This was based on the evidence that the factory started production from 31.01.2009 until the raid on 04.02.2009. The duty was calculated based on 15 Pouch Packing Machines (PPMs) installed and operated in the premises, with a duty liability of Rs. 2.85 crores per month (15 PPMs x Rs. 19 lakh per PPM) as per Notification No.42/2008-CE dated 1.7.2008.3. Imposition of Penalty:A penalty of Rs. 5.7 crores was imposed on all five noticees in equal proportion (Rs. 1.14 crores each) under Rule 17(1) of the Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008, read with Section 11AC of CEA, 1944, and Rule 25 of CER, 2002.4. Demand of Interest:Interest was ordered to be paid under Section 11AB [now Section 11AA] of CEA, 1944.5. Imposition of Additional Penalty:An additional penalty of Rs. 1.14 crores each was imposed on all five noticees under Rule 26(1) of CER, 2002, and Rule 17(1) of the Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008.Appeals and Arguments:Assessee's Appeal:The appellants argued that the Commissioner erred in confirming duty against individual persons and that they were not involved in the seized Gutkha's manufacture. They contended that the unit's location (Gandhinagar) was different from where the packaging machines were found (Kherwa, Taluka of Patdi). They also argued that the goods received from M/s Shree Raj Exports Pvt. Ltd. were shown in their records and were not diverted to the clandestine unit.Revenue's Appeal:The Revenue argued that the Commissioner should have confirmed duty for the entire period from July 2008 to February 2009, as per sub-rule 2 of Rule 17 of Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008. They contended that the statements relied upon by the Commissioner were not corroborated by independent evidence and that the noticees failed to produce satisfactory evidence regarding the machines' actual date of receipt.Tribunal's Findings:The Tribunal noted inconsistencies in the statements and the failure to grant cross-examination of witnesses, which is crucial under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal observed that the relief granted by the Commissioner was solely based on statements without fulfilling the conditions prescribed in Section 9D. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication, keeping all issues open.Conclusion:The appeals of Revenue, Royal Marwar Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd., and Dipak Kothari were allowed by way of remand, with instructions for the Commissioner to specifically state how the requirements of Section 9D have been fulfilled if relying on any statements.
TaxTMI 