TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 218
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....: S.K. Mohanty These appeals are directed against the impugned order dated 18.3.2011 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants M/s Nirmal products (Unit No. I and Unit II) are engaged in the manufacture of lime mix chewing tobacco and pouches falling under Chapter 24 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Central Exc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st the appellants vide order dated 20.5.2010, wherein the duty demands confirmed along with interest and penalties were imposed on the appellants. On appeal, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order has upheld the adjudged demand. 3. The ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the appellants - M/s Nirmal Products (Unit No. I & II) are not contesting the duty liability ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under Rule 26 ibid on the ground that ingredients mentioned in Rule 26 ibid are absent and the appellant has no role in contravention or violation of the statutory provisions. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and perused the case records. 6. On perusal of the case records, I find that the RG-1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her than chewing tobacco, the appellants are not manufacturing any other products in their factory, I am of the view that excepting chewing tobacco i.e. finished product of the appellant, other goods cannot be confiscated under Rule 25 ibid. I find that in identical situation, this Tribunal in the case of Anchal Prints Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held that raw material or semi finished processed goods c....