2017 (12) TMI 551

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ral Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the disputed period, the appellant was manufacturing and clearing such notified goods as per the provisions contained in the Chewing Tobacco and Un-manufactured Tobacco Packing Machine (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010. Acting on intelligence that some unauthorized activities were being carried out at the premises of the appellant, the Central Excise Officers visited the factory of the appellant on 28/02/2012. It was observed that the appellant was indulged in the surreptitious activity of packing and removing of such notified goods manufactured with the aid of undeclared pouch packing machine. Accordingly, show cause proceedings were initiated against the appellant, which culmin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nal in the case of Trimurti Fragrances Pvt. Ltd. V/s CCE, Delhi-III [2015 329 ELT 175 Tri.-Del.]. With regard to confiscation of the entire goods, the Ld. Advocate submitted that Rule 18 of the said rules does not provide for confiscation of raw material and packing material of notified goods, non-notified goods and undeclared pouch packing machine. Thus, she submitted that confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine are not justified, and accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, Ld. DR appearing for the respondents reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. I find that the adjudicating authority has accepted the fact th....