2008 (11) TMI 503

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ri Ramesh Nair, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This is revenue appeal against order-in-appeal No. IND-1/352/2006, dated 28-11-06 passed by CCE (Appeal-1), Indore. The respondents manufacture Gutkha, Pan Masala, Mouth Freshener and sweet supari under brand name "Shimla", "Malik Chand" & "Vansh" falling under Chapter 24 of the Excise Tariff, in their factory at Indore. The officers o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ompany as it is the respondent's company which was manufacturing "Shimla" brand Gutkha. Shri Nitesh Wadhwani, in his statement denied having booked the goods seized from the container in Chennai and in fact claimed that they have not sold any goods to anybody in Delhi and they have never booked any consignment from Delhi. He, however, stated that in order to protect their brand image, his company ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... release of the goods. 3. Heard both the sides. The learned Departmental Representative pleaded that in this case the release of the goods should not have been allowed and in this regard he relied upon the Tribunal's judgment in case of Ashok Kumar Gupta v. CCE, Ghaziabad reported in 2003 (160) E.L.T. 550 (Tri.-Del.), wherein the Tribunal held that when the non-duty paid goods were recover....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s no ground for ordering confiscation of the goods or for recovery of duty in respect of the goods from the respondent. He relied upon the Tribunal's judgment in case of Kothari Pouches Ltd. & Anr. v. CCE, New Delhi reported in 2001 (135) E.L.T. 531 (Tri) = 2000 (41) RLT 209 (CEGAT), wherein it was held by the Tribunal that the allegation of clandestine removal of the goods without payment of duty....