TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 960
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in-original dated 28th February/3rd March 2014 confirming the demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,99,50,000/-, with an equal amount of penalty on the Assessee. The CESTAT has by the impugned order directed the Appellant to make a pre-deposit Rs. 15,00,000/- within a period of eight weeks. 2. The impugned order of the CESTAT does not appear to have examined the submissions of the parties on merits. The only reasons given in the impugned order are contained in two short paras as under: "3. After careful consideration of the submission of both the sides, we find that the demand made as per rule 18 (2) of the said rules required to be rebutted by the applicant. The seizure of Machine, Packing material, Packing Machine o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....doria, the brother of Mr. Pawan Indoria, the Proprietor of the Appellant Assessee concern, stated that the said machines were second hand machines which he had purchased in cash, without bills. The officers then seized the machines on the reasonable belief that they were used in the unlawful manufacture of khaini without obtaining Central Excise registration and without paying the appropriate Central Excise duty. On physical stock taking, the officers found packing materials valued at Rs. 2,01,500/-, raw materials valued at Rs. 1,00,650/- and finished goods valued at Rs. 95,280 in the premises. As the goods were unable to be accounted for by Mr. Kunal Indoria they were also seized. Some loose papers found in the premises were also seized. M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2010 and that he had received the payment in cash; that these pouch packing machines were of no use and could only be melted after dismantling the machines. The Department also recorded the statement of Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh of M/s. Krish Marketing of Chennai who stated that goods purchased from the Appellant concern had been returned to it as a result of problems with quality. 6. The defence of the Appellant Assessee as noted in the order-in-original of the Commissioner that there was no electricity connection and there were no motors for operating the packing machines. The further defence was that the stock of tobacco found in the premises was that which had been returned to the Appellant as defective goods. There were documents to show....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010 ('Rules') cannot be made applicable simply on the ground that noticee's attitude was non co-operative. She drew attention to the manner in which the point regarding the absence of motors at the time of search has been dealt with by the Commissioner on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He observed in para 114 of the order: "114. In view of the above said admission and this being a case of clandestine manufacture, the possibility of noticee bringing in motors for the purpose of manufacturing and thereafter removing the same after completing manufacturing activity cannot be ruled out. The motors may well have been removed on day of search for repairs, replacements etc." 8. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....strates that the Appellant as Noticee No.1 could be said to have been party to the clandestine manufacture and removal of chewing tobacco using the machines found at the premises. This would also have to be examined in the context of the fact that a separate SCN has been issued to Mr. Kunal Indoria arising from the same search. The effect of the retraction of the statement made by Mr. Kunal Indoria and the requirement that there must be sufficient other evidence to corroborate the said retracted statement would also have to be examined in detailed by the CESTAT. 10. Both learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Benara Valves Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise (2006) 13 SCC 347. In the said decision, while expl....