TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 221
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rated hereunder. 2. Being aggrieved by the final order No. A/51115-51116 dated 26.03.2018 passed by Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, West Block No.2, R.K Puram, New Delhi in Central Excise Appeal (CEA) No. E/50146/2018, the Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise has preferred both these appeals. 3. The facts giving rise to both these appeals in brief are that an investigation initiated against M/s Suresh Enterprises, Pune for clandestine manufacture and supply of scented tobacco to various manufacturers such as Ms. R.S. Company and M/s R.S. Industries, Indore. Search was conducted at the factory premises of both these companies and also at M/s Shaan Trading Company, Indore on 18/19.02.2000. During t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted that the Gutakha manufacturers had clandestinely purchased above raw materials in cash and under fictitious names also. The investigation also revealed that M/s R.S. Company and M/s R.S. Industries, Indore had cleared "Sitar" and "Sikandar Brand" gutakha clandestinely to common network of dealers situated at Indore, Raipur, Nanded and Jaipur through M/s Delux Roadways, Indore. 5. On the basis of facts and evidences on record, a show cause notice was issued vide C.No.DGCEI/AZU/36-26-2002 dated 23.04.2003 to M/s R.S. Company and M/s R.S. Industries, Indore demanding Central Excise duty of Rs. 39,44,21,052/- and Rs. 2,82,78,948/- respectively along with interest and imposition of penalty. The respondent challenged this notice and the Comm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bserving that there was sufficient evidence about clandestine manufacturing and removal of the goods. 8. The order of the High Court was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by preferring Civil Appeal Nos. 25788/2017 and 33938/2017, which were dismissed at the admission stage vide order dated 20.11.2017 holding that there is no merit in the appeals. 9. Following the guidelines issued under the final order dated 06.03.2012 [A/257/2012/EX(BR)], the original Adjudicating Authority i.e. Principal Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Indore, adjudicated the matter vide Order-in-Original No. 54/PR.COMMR/CEX/ IND/2016 dated 31.10.2016. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 7,98,42,106/- and R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2-EX(BR)] it has been held that the evidence showing unaccounted receipts of scented tobacco as evidenced by the records recovered from M/s Sarita Roadways is maintainable and later on the High Court vide judgment dated 08.02.2017 also held that there was sufficient evidence about the manufacture and removal of goods and the department has rightly drawn inference about clandestine manufacturing and removal. It is further submitted that in the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority has wrongly held that the demand has been requantified correctly as only the LRs pertains to M/s R.S. Companies has been listed and the LRs those pertains to M/s R.S. Industries have not been listed in it. 13. In the backdrop of these facts, the following que....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ery Lorry Receipts are totally independent business entities. Their assessment and registration are separate. There business are separate, therefore, they cannot be held liable for any duty/penalty for the Lorry Receipts related to different companies and the learned CESTAT has rightly held the same. It is further argued that the learned CESTAT has remanded back the matter with a direction to examine all the Lorry Receipts and determine the duty/penalty appreciated to the Lorry Receipts in the name of respondents company and the adjudicating authority can verify and raise the demand accordingly. Therefore, neither there was any scope nor necessity to interfere in the order of learned CESTAT. 15. We have heard learned counsel for the parti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... With the above observations, appeal are disposed of." 17. While deciding the dispute between the parties, learned CESTAT has not opined or held that the Lorry Receipts recovered during the search are not admissible, therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the order of learned CESTAT is incorrect or illegal is not tenable. 18. The learned CESTAT has clearly held in para no.9 of the impugned order that "It appears that all business entities mentioned in the Lorry Receipts are independent business entities as their assessment, registration etc were separate. In the eyes of law, if each firm/business entity is a separate business entity as its assessment was separate". There is nothing on record to reb....