TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 995
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 per pack. Gutkha is subject to assessment of duty under section 4A of the Central Excise Act based on maximum retail price after granting admissible abatement. M/s. Supreme Road Transport Pvt. Ltd. (M/s SRT) were engaged in transportation of gutkha bearing brand name of "Rajshree" and "Safal". 2. On the basis of intelligence that M/s. KPP were clandestinely clearing gutkha from their factory without payment of duty, Central Excise officers visited two godowns of STR at Raipur, one situated at Mahadev Ghat Chowk (A) and other situated near Indian Oil Depot (B) and conducted checks in the presence of Shri Ravi Singhal, Director of the M/s. SRT. At godown A the officers found three goods transport vehicles which were loaded with gutkha. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... statement of Shri R P Tripathi, Director of M/s. KPP was recorded. He stated that major quantity of gutkha was dispatched to Orissa, Chhattisgarh and other states for sale. In respect of detained 2404 packs of gutkha he stated that the goods were sold to various buyers on cash sale basis and submitted the details of bill numbers 101 to 122 issued between 08.10.2006 and 14.10.2006. 4. The dispute pertains to the Central Excise duty payable on 2404 bags of Gutkha bearing the brand names "Rajshree" and "Safal". These goods were seized at the two godowns of M/s Supreme Road Transport located at Raipur. At the time of provisional release of these seized goods, the appellant assessee paid the entire duty due on seized goods amounting to about R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d between 8 & 14 , October, 2006. The duty has been paid a second time at the time of provisional release of these goods. Accordingly, they have submitted that the excess duty should be refunded as well as penalty order should be set aside. 8. Scrutiny of these 22 invoices reveals that Gutkha bags were sold to various individuals on cash sale basis. These invoices do not bear the names or addresses of any individuals/ buyers, who have taken delivery of the goods themselves. Under these circumstances, we failed to understand how the appellant can claim that these invoices cover the consignment of 2404 bags seized in Raipur. The only common factor appears to be that the Gutkha seized had the brand names of "Rajshree" and "Safal" which belong....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... seized was sold on cash sale basis to unknown persons is difficult to believe. It is also a mystery how such a huge volume of Gutkha was found in Raipur. Further, the final consignees of the Gutkha could not be traced. It is also on record that neither the consignors nor the consignees chose to come forward for claiming the seized goods. 11. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, by taking note of the totality of the circumstances, we are convinced that the goods seized at Raipur were infact manufactured and cleared by the appellant-assessee clandestinely without payment of duty. We are also equally convinced that the claim of the appellant-assessee that the goods are covered by the 22 invoices submitted by them has been mad....