TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1550
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or finished goods were available at his house. The Officers then asked him to unlock the door of the said unauthorized premises. On entering into the house, the Officers found five (05) bags full of pouches bearing brand name (Cheel Panchi Chaap Surti) in a veranda. Shri Mohammad Nadeem informed that each such bag contained 20 pouches x 100 packets or (2000 pouches of Surti). Then, he escorted the Officers to a room where an FFS (Form, Fill & Seal) Machine was installed on which printed packing roll of 'Cheel Panchi Chaap Surti' was loaded. Tobacco was also found loaded in the hopper of the machine. Around 200 pouches of 'Cheel Panchi Chaap Surti', in loose condition filled with tobacco, was also kept in Container/Tasla lying nearby the packing machine. In the same room, one printed packing roll and around 200 kg of tobacco was also found. The electric cable of the machine was connected to an electrical board on the adjacent wall. Besides this, no other raw material or finished goods were found in the room. On being asked, Shri Mohammad Nadeem told that the portion, which was in his possession, belonged to his uncle Shri Mohammad Suleman, which he had taken on a mon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... weight 07 gms, MRP Rs. 2/- per pouch, Manufacturer - Eagle Tobacco Factory, Kasba - Ichauli (Barabanki) was printed. Shri Mohammad Nadeem admitted that the said 07 bags of Tobacco were manufactured in his unregistered premises by using the FFS Machine and no Cenvat duty was paid on them. Therefore, the Officers on the reasonable belief that the said goods (14,000 pouches of tobacco) were manufactured and removed in contravention of the relevant rules and the said vehicle was used for transportation of the said contraband goods, rendering the said goods liable to confiscation, seized the said vehicle alongwith the goods loaded thereon, as per the Panchnama drawn on 01/07/2011. 2. The statement of Shri Mohammad Nadeem was recorded during the Panchnama proceedings and another statement was recorded on 15/07/2011. From the investigation, it appeared to Revenue that 'Cheel Panchi Chaap Surti' was being packed by Shri Mohammad Nadeem in plastic pouches of MRP Rs. 2/- using FFS Machine for packing, were classifiable as "Unmanufactured Tobacco" under heading 2401 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and were therefore liable to Central Excise duty @ Rs. 10.25 lakhs per month (on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wing Tobacco & Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination & Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010. The excisable goods found at the time of search as per Panchnama and aggregating in value at Rs. 79,400/- was also confiscated under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 with further option to redeem on payment of fine of Rs. 20,000/- in lieu of confiscation of the goods. Further confiscation of the Maruti Eco bearing Registration No.UP41 N0892 was also ordered, option was given to redeem to its owner Shri Mohammad Faheem to pay a fine of Rs. 62,375/-. Further penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed on Shri Mohammad Faheem under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order the appellant - M/s Eagle Tobacco Company filed appeal before Id. Commissioner (Appeals), wherein he was pleased to dismiss the appeal upholding the Order-in-Original. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order the appellant-assessee is before this Tribunal, on the grounds that the duty has been calculated for four months, is merely on assumptions and presumptions and thus it is fit to be set aside. The learned counsel for the appellant - Mr. Dushyant Kumar urges that i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... his signature on the bill, but accepted that someone else in his firm has issued the same without his knowledge. Thus denial without sufficient reason on the face of documentary evidence and further the contents of the bill tallies with the seller's copy available in the bill book. The obvious reason for vague denial by Shri Beni Prashad Sharma appears to be, not a registered dealer either with the Sales Tax Department or the Central Excise Department. 7. It is further urged by the learned Counsel that the statement recorded of Shri Agarwal, Proprietor of M/s Agarwal Polypack, Barabanki, who has stated that he had supplied the paper roll for the first time to the appellant on 26/06/2011. Shri Agarwal has further stated that prior to the supply of these paper rolls, he has supplied paper bags for putting/packing pouches therein. Thus question to manufacture of Chewing Tobacco by using FFS Machine for the last four months does not arise at all. Further, there is no clinching evidence brought on record, as regards purchase of raw materials, use of electricity for the last four months, sale of final products, clandestine removal, etc. 8. It is further urged by the learned Counse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pproximately 15 days earlier from the day of the raid i.e. in the middle of June, 2011. The learned Counsel further urges that mere confessional statement is not enough to conclude the allegation of clandestine removal in view of overwhelming documentary evidence available on record. Further reliance is placed on the Larger Bench ruling of this Tribunal in the case of Transocean Shipping Agency (P) Ltd. Versus Collector of Customs reported at 1990 (47) ELT 601 (Tri. - LB) wherein it has been held that the documentary evidence prevails over oral evidence. Confessional statements of an assessee can later be controverted by himself through documentary evidence to disprove the allegation of clandestine removal. 10. It is further urged that the incorrect registration number mentioned on the pouches is only by way of printing mistake, calling for no adverse inference. The printing mistake is also supported by the fact that the name of the appellant - M/s Eagle Tobacco Co. and its address were correctly mentioned on the pouches. 11. Thus, under the facts and circumstances at best the appellant is liable to be charged duty on pro-rata basis only for two days for the month of June, 2011 u....