Tribunal overturns duty demand & penalties for cigarette brand mixing issue

The Tribunal set aside the order confirming duty demand and penalty imposition on all appellants for cigarettes taken out of quality control checks within the factory. The appellant's methodology to prevent brand mixing involved pasting one cigarette from each tray on the packet shell before packing, which ceased in 2009. The Tribunal found the demand post-April 2009 unsustainable and the notice for the period before April 2009 time-barred, as the unit was under the Department's physical control. The appeals were allowed based on the cessation of the pasting activity in 2009.

---

---

Issues:
1. Demand on duty for cigarettes taken out of quality control checks within the factory.
2. Imposition of penalty on all the appellants.
3. Appellant's methodology to prevent brand mixing.
4. Change in trays for brand mixing prevention.
5. Pasting activity for packing convenience.
6. Barred by limitation for the period January 2007 to October 2011.

Analysis:
1. The appellants appealed against the order confirming duty demand for cigarettes taken out of quality control checks within the factory under the respondent's control from January 2007 to October 2011. Penalty was imposed on all the appellants. The appellant, a subsidiary of a company, maintained an in-house quality control laboratory for quality checks. Visual checks were conducted on the production line itself, including brand mixing prevention. A show cause notice was issued in 2012 for duty demand and penalty imposition.

2. The appellant's methodology to prevent brand mixing involved using trays for cigarette sticks, which were later replaced with plastic trays in 2007. The change led to scenarios of brand mixing due to trays containing cigarettes of multiple brands. To address this, a new process was adopted from January 2007, where the packing machine operator pasted one cigarette from each tray on the cigarette packet shell before packing. Records were maintained for this pasting activity and subsequent handling of the pasted cigarettes.

3. The pasted cigarettes were collected at the end of the shift, ripped open, and the tobacco retrieved was mixed with loose tobacco of the same brand. Records were maintained for the ripped cigarettes and mixing of tobacco. The show cause notice alleged that the pasting activity was for packing convenience without test reports, leading to duty liability on the cigarettes used in the activity.

4. The appellant argued that the pasting activity ceased in 2009, and they informed the Department accordingly. They contended that the demand post-April 2009 was presumptive and not sustainable. The appellant claimed the show cause notice for the period before April 2009 was time-barred due to the unit being under the Department's physical control. The Tribunal found the demand after April 2009 unsustainable and the notice for the period before April 2009 barred by limitation.

5. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals due to the cessation of the pasting activity in 2009, making the demand post-April 2009 not sustainable. The show cause notice for the period before April 2009 was deemed time-barred, as the unit was under the Department's physical control.

---