2017 (6) TMI 673

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....PM had manufactured and cleared chewing tobacco without discharging duty liability thereon and had also indulged in unaccounted procurement of raw tobacco. In adjudication proceedings, the original authority confirmed the differential duty demand of Rs. 18,33,952/- on KPM along with interest liability thereon and imposed equal penalty of Rs. 18,33,952/- under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The adjudicating authority also imposed penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on Shri M.A. Abdul Salam under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (appellant in Appeal No. E/554/2007). On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his impugned order dated 3.5.2007 upheld the order of the original authority. Hence both the appellants are before this foru....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat the appellants are not very educated and did not know the provisions. For this reason, he requested that the benefit of MRP with related abatement which is very much due to chewing tobacco may be extended to them for calculation of differential duty liability and also for calculation of penalty. 2.4 On the appeal filed by Shri M.A. Abdul Salam, ld. Advocate contends that the said person was only the son of KPM and is not deserving to be penalized. 3. On the other hand, learned AR Shri K.P. Muralidharan supports the adjudication. He further submits that there is no evidence whatsoever, apart from the affidavit brought out by the appellant to show that 42,221 kgs. of raw tobacco procured by them had not been used for manufacture of chew....