TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 35
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Penalty Rs. CE-20/R-13/Offence/ Gulabgundhi/69/10/649 dated 28.03.2011 M/s Gulabgundhi Tobacco Company 26,59,362/- 26,59,362/- CE-20/R-13/Offence/ Gulabgundhi/69/10/649 dated 28.03.2011 Atul Gandhi, Partner - 1,50,000/- CE-20/R-13/Offence/ Gulabgundhi/11/904 dated 31.10.2011 M/s Gulabgundhi Tobacco Company 4,28,700/- 4,28,700/- CE-20/R-13/Offence/ Gulabgundhi/11/904 dated 31.10.2011 Atul Gandhi, Partner - 10,000/- 2. The issue, in brief, is as under: The appellants are manufacturing kimam on which they are paying advalorem duty on value as per section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. They were classifying the goods under heading 2404.41 as 'chewing tobacco and preparation containing chewing tobacco' so long as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpugned product was covered under the description: Preparation containing chewing tobacco as is evident from para 19 of the said Supreme Court judgment. The appellants have contended that kimam is not chewing tobacco or preparation containing chewing tobacco. However, in the light of the Supreme Court judgment, holding it to be covered under the scope of preparation containing chewing tobacco (i.e. under the tariff sub-heading 2404.41: Chewing tobacco, preparation containing chewing tobacco), there is no scope for any discussion in this regard because it can be no-bodys case that if the impugned goods were covered under the expression preparation containing chewing tobacco at the time when the Supreme Court said they did, they would n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hey had doubts they should have got their doubts clarified. When there had not been such initiative on the part of the appellants, they cannot claim that this has been the bonafide dispute. The appellants also plead that they have only been singled out for payment of duty under Tariff Heading 24039920, where duty is payable as per valuation under MRP structure under provisions of Sec. 4A of Central Excise Act. But the appellants have not been able to prove this argument and they have not shown any instance, where other assessees are manufacturing this item namely, 'kimam' and are being charged duty under different Tariff Heading. 7. Thus it is seen that the Commissioner (Appeals) held them guilty of suppression for not taking 'initiative' ....