Page 263 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] KAIPAN PAN MASALA PVT. LTD. v. COMMR. OF CGST, EX. AND CUS., BHOPAL 149

11. Nil dated Sada kiwam DGCEI New Fancy 23-3-2016 The sample is in
14-1-2016 in liquid Tobacco the form of dark
form Works, Luck- brown coloured
now viscous liquid. It
is an aqueous
preparation con-
taining extract of
tobacco.
12. Nil dated Sada kiwam DGCEI New Fancy 23-3-2016 The sample is in
14-1-2016 in liquid Tobacco the form of dark
form Works, Luck- brown coloured
now viscous liquid. It
is an aqueous
preparation con-
taining extract of
tobacco.
6. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 1-3-2017 issued to the appel-
lants which culminated into order dated 20-12-2017 which is contested in these
appeals by the appellants M/s. Kay Pan Sugandh and Shri Ram Gopal Agnihotri.
7. Based on the aforesaid test results on the samples drawn from M/s.
Kaipan Pan Masala Private Limited, Bhopal, other appellant the other demands
were confirmed against the appellant in appeal Nos. ;

S Appeal No. Particulars Nature of Matter
No.
1. E/50468/2018 Kaipan Pan Masala Pvt. Ltd. v. Classification dispute as to
CCGST, CE & C, Bhopal whether good are zarda scented
tobacco or chewing tobacco.
2. E/50469/2018 -do- -do-
3. E/50470/2018 -do- -do-
4. E/50471/2018 -do- -do-
5. E/ 50472/2018 -do- -do-

8. In these cases appeal was filed before Ld. Commissioner (Appeals)
who vide common order dated 30-10-2017 disposed of the appeal as under;
“17. Thus, I find that Department case against the Noticee No. 1 is sus-
tainable in the light of arguments and evidences mentioned in the SCN and
as the Noticees’ defence is not based on any infallible documentary evi-
dence. It is, therefore, evidently proved that Noticee No. 1 had misdeclared
the product as Chewing tobacco instead of the correct classification of jarda
scented tobacco during the period June, 2015 to February, 2016. The differ-
ential Central Excise Duty of Rs. 16,95,33,000/- not paid by the Noticee No.
1 is, therefore, liable to be demanded and recovered from them under the
provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 9 of
Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacoo Packing Machines (Ca-
pacity Determination & Collection of Duty.) Rules, 2010. Held, accordingly.
I however find that though the SCN proposes appropriation of the duty
paid ‘under protest’, there is no mention of exact amount. I find that no one
side, the Director of the company, in his statement dated 30-10-2015, states

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  311