2016 (2) TMI 362

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... case are that on 20.08.2007 a search was conducted in the premises of Shri Janak Raj who was engaged in the manufacturing of Chewing Tobacco bearing the brand name Mahesh Chapp 901 Chewing Tobacco. Investigation revealed that one GR No. 784384 was seized and it was revealed that against the said GR goods were sent to Shri Mahavir General Store, Jodhpur. The GR shows that goods have been declared as Naswar whereas it was found Chewing tobacco. On the basis of that a case was booked against Shri Janak Raj, Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Shri Purshottam Kumar and others. It is pertinent to mention here that Shri Sanjeev Kumar and Shri Purshottam Kumar are sons of Shri Janak Raj. Those proceedings are not a part of the proceedings in this case. But on th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Sanjeev Kumar and Shri Janak Raj have filed appeals against the impugned order. 3. The Ld. Authorized representative of the appellants submits that the case has been booked against the appellations on the basis of earlier investigation i.e. goods seized on 28.11.2007 on the premises of Shri janak Raj. The proceedings against that investigation has been completed and in that case demand of duty of Rs. 26,217/- was confirmed and penalties equivalent amount of penalty on Shri Janak and penalty of Rs. 2000 on Shri Sanjeev Kumar and Shri Purshottam Kumar each were imposed. That proceedings are not a part of these proceedings. He submits that the statement of Shri Sanjeev Kumar recorded on 01.12.2007 cannot be relied upon in the proceedings impu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted wherein demands have been confirmed against the appellant and same has been accepted by the appellants. Therefore, Revenue is not required to prove their case in these proceedings and same are to be confirmed on the basis of earlier proceedings. 4. Heard the parties. Considered the submission. 5. In the earlier proceedings investigation was conducted and it was found that in the case of 1 GR no. 784384 dated 24.11.2007 is the subject matter wherein the investigation was conducted and it was revealed that through consignee that the appellants have cleared chewing tobacco in the guise of Naswar. But in the impugned proceedings the said GR has not been made basis of the case. In fact, in this case RR No. 789384 dated 24.11.2007 has been ....