TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 1709
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e duty by way of unaccounted manufacture of illicit clearances of excisable goods namely, Snuff of tobacco officers of DECEI carried out searches at the premises of the appellant and their buyers. On scrutiny of seized records and investigation, it was found that during the financial year 2002-03 to 2006-07 (till 27.07.2006), the appellant have cleared snuff of tobacco in retail packages of 50gms, 100gms, 200gms, and 500gms bearing Umashanker and Krishna brand having gross value of Rs. 18,24,550/- by declaring less assessable value and making payment of central excise duty on lesser value of snuff in bulk used within their factory for the manufacture of snuff in retail packages. An amount of duty Rs. 1,92,165/- was paid by the appellant for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ide the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on Sh. Ashish B. Amin, Proprietor of appellant firm, therefore, the present appeal was filed by the appellant. 3. Sh. Amal Dave Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant at the outset submits that the appellant is not contesting the merit of the case i.e. demand of differential duty. However, he strongly submits that the show cause notice is time bar as the same was issued for the period 2002-03 to 2006-07 on 15.03.2007. He submits that the appellant was registered with Central Excise Department and they were filing monthly ER-1 return. They were under bonafide belief that once the goods was manufactured in bulk form, the duty is payable on the value of bulk snuff of tobacco and not on retail ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in their ER-1 return, thereby they have suppressed the fact. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. We find that the appellant is not disputing the duty demand on merit of the case. We find that since the appellant in the factory premises manufacturing snuff of tobacco in bulk and in the same premises they were converting from bulk pack to retail pack and the final clearances for sale of goods was made in the retail pack by charging the higher value, therefore, undisputedly the appellant was supposed to pay duty on the value of retail pack. Even otherwise as per Chapter Note of Chapter 24 at the relevant time, the activity of repacking of goods from bulk pack to retail pack was amoun....