TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (9) TMI 571
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has given a relief to the respondents on the point of limitation. 2. The case in brief is that a Show Cause Notice was issued to M/s. Choubey Sugandhit Tambaku, Bhagalpur (in brief "the party") in which it was alleged that they had captively consu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....then it is being consumed by them captively in the manufacture of branded chewing tobacco falling under CSH 2404.41. For such clearances, the party were required to pay Central Excise duty which was not done. Further, they did not mention unbranded Khaini in Col. No. 6 of their C.L. nor reflected any declaration under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for availing Modvat credit on the sai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d chewing tobacco and if the Department was having any doubt, they should have made further enquiries or verifications. Mere non-mention of unbranded items in Column 6 of the Classification List specifically does not tantamount to a suppression or misdeclaration of facts. He has also observed that the respondents have been undertaking the manufacturing process since 1986 and the Department was wel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents' contention is that it is the same tobacco (unbranded) which is further filled in the poly packs having printed brand-name over it. If that is the manufacturing process, to plead on the part of the Revenue that the respondents had not declared the manufacture of unbranded chewing tobacco, is to plead ignorance on their part. It is also seen that for the period from 20-5-1994 to 10-8-1994, the....