TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 1103
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....:- (a) Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT is correct in holding that confirmation of demand of duty on impugned goods was not sustainable merely on the basis of presence of machines and certain statements of labourers and accountants whereas there were evidences in form of verification and still photography of machines and confessional statement of Shri Rajesh Goyal, Director ? and; (b) Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT is correct in setting aside the demand of non-payment of Central Excise Duty of Rs. 3,17,41,935/- by holding that the statements of concerned persons used as corroboratory evidences were not legally sustainable as crossexamination of witnesses was not allowed by the adjudicating authority whereas the assessee had not claimed that statements of said persons were factually wrong or they had any bias or malice towards the assessee and cross examination of such persons would not have reduced the weight of evidentiary value of their statements. 4. Learned counsel for appellant has framed in Excise Appeal No.70/2017 the following substantial questions of law:- (a) Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT is correct in holding that confirmation of demand of duty on impugn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of this order. (iii) I order under Rule 18(1) of the Chewing Tobacco and Un-manufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010, order confiscation of quantity of 72000 pouches of 'Laxmi' brand unmanufactured chewing tobacco pouches valued at Rs. 1,44,000/- However in terms of Section 34 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, an option is given to M/s Goyal Tobacco Co. P Ltd, B-21, Krishanpuri, Old Ramgarh Mod, Jaipur to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) in lieu of confiscation. This option should be exercised within 90 days from the receipt of this order. At the time of release of the goods, Central Excise officer shall draw proper samples of the goods for future reference. (iv) I order under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 order confiscation of 26 bags of Orchha Pouch of Unmanufactured Tobacco of MRP Rs. 2 each, total valued at Rs. 1,56,000/- and quantity of 4500 pouches of big Zipper of unmanufactured tobacco of MRP Rs. 4, total valued at Rs. 1800/-. However in terms of Section 34 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, an option is given to M/s Goyal Tobacco Co. P Ltd.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is use or not, or is in working condition or not. It appeared that this scheme is a self contained compounded levy scheme." 8. It is contended that Tribunal has wrongly observed in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 which reads as under:- "Whereas satement of Shri Rakesh Kumar, lobour of M/s Goyal Tobacco Co P Ltd, B-21, Krishnapuri, Old Ramgarh Moh, Jaipur was recorded on the spot on 18.01.2011 under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 wherein he interalia stated that: (i) he was working as lobourer in M/s Goyal Tobacco Co. Pvt. Ltd. For last 2 years. In the company premises he used to pack Laxmi Brand tobacco pouch on an automatic pouch packing machine. (ii) that the packing work was done in guidance of Sh. Shyam Babu Goyal; (iii) that on the direction of Sh. Rajesh Kumar Goyal, the Director of Company, they used to pack the 'Laxmi' brand tobacco pouches with the help of 3 automatic pouch packing machines installed at 269, Govind Nagar (East), Old Ramgarh Moad, Jaipur and one tobacco mixer. (iv) that since he joined the company , he used to pack the tobacco pouch packing 'Laxmi' brand at 269, Govind Nagar (East). Old Ramgarh Moad, Jaipur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s-examination of the witnesses as regards the place at which recovery was made. Since the dispute concerns the confiscation of the jewellery, whether at conveyor belt or at the green channel, perhaps the witnesses were required to be called. But in view of confession made by him, it binds him and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case the failure to give him the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses is not violative of principle of natural justice. It is contended that the petitioner had retracted within six days from the confession. Therefore, he is entitled to cross-examine the panch witnesses before the authority takes a decision on proof of the offence. We find no force in this contention. The Custom officials are not police officers. The confession, though retracted, is an admissions and binds the petitioner. So there is no need to call panch witnesses for examination and crossexamination by the petitioner. It is contended that under the Rules jewellery is exempted articles Kara being a symbol of the religious wear by the Sikh community, it is a jewellery exempted from the Act and it cannot be confiscated. In view of the admission that he had pur....