JAGATPAL PREM CHAND LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two appeals, filed by M/s Jagat Pal Premchand Ltd., and their Director, the issue involved relates to manufacture and clearance of excisable goods without payment of duty.

(2.) Shri R. Sudhinder, learned Advocate, mentioned that the appellants manufacture Pan Masala and Gutkha from a rented premises; that the various raw materials mainly used are Supari, Katha, lime, M.C. Menthol and flavours; that laminates are used as packing material which they procure from M/s Sharp Industries Ltd., Mumbai on payment of duty; that they avail Modvat credit of the duty paid on laminates; that the Department had started the investigation against Sharp Industries on the basis of information that they had removed the laminates without payment of duty; that simultaneous search and seizure operations were carried out on 2.8.1994 at the premises of Sharp Industries and of appellants; that there was no discrepancy in the finished goods at their premises; that some stock of duty paid laminates were seized from their premises on the ground that the same were unaccounted for; that the Officers did not find any raw material in excess at the appellant's factory or office, nor did they find any incriminating document in their premises; that there was also no seizure of stock from any of their customers nor was there any seizure of their finished products in transit.

(3.) The learned Advocate submitted that the impugned order is per se had in law as there is not even on iota of evidence to support the charge of alleged clandestine manufacture and sale of finished products by the appellants; that the Officers did not find any excess laminates or any excess raw material at their factory or office nor did they find any incriminating document in their premises; that the officers did not find any excess finished stocks at the appellants' premises nor they found any clandestine finished goods either in transit or at any transporter or at any distributor or at any of their depots; that there was no seizure of stock at any of the customers of the appellants nor were any offending goods seized while they were in transit; that not a single statement has been recorded of any person who allegedly received any final product alleged to be clandestinely cleared by them.