TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 1207
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of same impugned Order-in-Appeal and, therefore, they are taken together for decision. 2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s Musk Tobacco were manufacturer of cigarettes falling under Chapter 24 of Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Their unit was under physical control. The officers of Central Excise Intelligence visited the factory premises of the appellant on 26.09.2007 and found that 15,000 loose cigarettes were lying in the factory which were not entered into RG-1 register as on the date of visit. The said cigarettes valued at Rs. 4,000/- were seized through Panchnama dated 26.09.2007. Further the officers conducted searches and investigations at residential premises of Shri Roop Singh where they seized 2,88,000 sticks o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and of Rs. 6,20,023/- and imposed equal penalty on the manufacturer. Further he imposed personal penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on Shri Kamal Singh Yadav, that of Rs. 2,40,000/- on Shri Roop Singh and that of Rs. 60,000/- on Shri Lekh Raj. Aggrieved by the said order manufacturer and above stated persons filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). Before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) the appellants also took up the matter of non-acceptance of their request for cross examination of the persons whose statements were relied upon for issue of said show cause notice. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) decided the said appeals through impugned Order-in-Appeal. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) did not interfere with said Order-in-Original dated 31.08.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se Duty. He further submitted that in view of the ruling in the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. reported at 2016 (340) ELT 67 (P & H) such statements which have not been examined by the Adjudicating Authority as in examination in chief cannot be relied upon as admissible evidence. 4. Heard the learned AR who has supported the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 5. Having considered the rival contention and on perusal of record I find that 15,000 cigarettes which were lying within the factory premises were not contravening goods and had not violated any provision of Central Excise Act and, therefore, their confiscation is set aside. The Original Authority should have ordered them to be recorded in RG-1 so....