2017 (12) TMI 218

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....R., for the respondent ORDER Per: 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 Centra....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellants. The matter was adjudicated against 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s also contesting the penalty imposed on him 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....goods manufactured by the person and admittedly other 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 th....