2018 (1) TMI 871

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Shri B.K. Singh, Advocate - for the appellant Ms. Vandana Singh, Advocate Shri H. Saini, D.R. - for the respondent ORDER Per Justice Dr. Satish Chandra   The present appeals have been filed by the appellant against the Order-in-Original No. 28/2016 dated 20.10.2016. The period of demand is April 2013 to 29.1.2014. 2. The brief facts of the case are that both the appellants who ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e, engaged in the manufacturing of the chewing tobacco. They are the owner of the machines which were installed at the factory premises. Shri Mohammad Hussain Alias Raju Khan was working as machine operator/labourer. In his statement, he submitted that the entire tobacco was sold to Shri Manoj Gupta (Monu Bhaisahab) of Gwalior. It is the submission of the ld. Counsel that the appellant was not eng....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d order. He submits that at the time of search, along with the two pouch machines, sufficient raw material and inputs were found. The appellant prepared the packing pouches of Rs. 2/- and 5/- which were sold to Shri Manoj Gupta (Monu Bhaisahab) of Gwalior. In the statement of Shri Mohammad Hussain Alias Raju Khan, it is stated that the real owner of the machine and tobacco is the appellant i.e. Sh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... verification or cross examination as they merely stated about the ownership. 6. Thus, it is evident that the appellant was manufacturing the chewing tobacco without paying any duty in the clandestine manner. When it is so, then we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 7. However, during the course of arguments, the ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that for the period Jan....