AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 308
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order dated 07.03.2018, on the following substantial question of law: Whether CESTAT had committed an error in discarding the documents relied upon by the Enforcement Authorities and in that regard whether such decision is contrary to the provisions as contained in Section 36(B) of the Act? 2. Facts leading to filing of the appeals, briefly stated, are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of 'Hira' and 'Baoba' pan masala containing tobacco which is commonly known as 'gutkha', 'jafrani zarda' and 'Hira' brand supra , which is covered under the tariff items of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The assessee, which is a partnership firm, is registered with the Central Excise Department. Based on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....li. 4. Thereafter, show causes notices dated 03.09.2004 were issued to the assessee by which the assessee was asked to show cause with regard to proposed demand of duty along with interest on the excisable goods, in addition to confiscation of the goods. An additional show cause notice was issued on 16.06.2006 demanding duty to the tune of Rs. 4,60,65,669/- along with interest was also served on the assessee on the ground that he clandestinely removed gutkha without payment of the duty. In the aforesaid show cause notice, proposal was also made for imposing of penalty under Rule 24 and 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and under Section 11AC of the Act, on the assessee and its partners. 5. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Cus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ibunal. The Tribunal, by order dated 2nd May 2011, has allowed the appeals preferred by the assessee. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is before us in these appeals. 7. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that there was enough material available on record to show that the assessee cleared gutkha without payment of the duty. Learned counsel for the revenue has read over the order passed by the Commissioner to us and has submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in reversing the order passed by the Commissioner. It is further submitted that from the computer print-out as well as the railway receipts, it was evident that the assessee had removed the goods without payment of the excise duty. It is further submitted that the burden of proof....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es not arise for consideration in the facts of this case. In this connection, the learned senior counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to paragraphs 10.4, 10.5, 10.7 and 10.8 of the order passed by the Tribunal. It is further submitted that the Commissioner merely by relying on the third party documents and without adverting itself to the documents pertaining to manufacture and sale of gutkha in question, could not have recorded the finding with regard to evasion of duty which is perverse and has rightly been set aside. It is further submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal is based on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record and does not call for any interference as no substantial question of law arise for consider....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has held that the railway receipts produced by the revenue pertained to 340 consignments which are transported by one individual to another individual and the same do not indicate that they have been transported by the assessee. In none of the railway receipts against the name of consignor and consignee, either the name of the assessee or his dealers has been mentioned. It has further been held by the Tribunal that no investigation has been conducted by the revenue with the railway parties or with the person, who had dealt with these consignments, to conclude that the consignments were actually of gutkha cleared by the assessee clandestinely during the period from 17.12.2002 to 13.03.2004. 11. From perusal of paragraph 10.7 of the order....