Page 266 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

152 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

Sr. Date of Goods declared to be Retail Speed of No of ma- Exhibit
No. declaration manufactured sale machine chines for No.
price of per minute operation
the (pouches
pouch per minute)
1. 1-3-2015 Jarda Scented tobacco Rs. 1 220 4 I
2. 24-3-2015 Jarda Scented Tobacco Rs. 1 310 4 II
3. 1-4-2015 Jarda Scented tobacco Rs. 1 310 4 III
4. 27-5-2015 Chewing Tobacco Rs. 1 310 4 IV
5. 18-6-2015 Chewing Tobacco Rs. 1 310 5 V
6. 28-7-2015 Chewing Tobacco Rs. 1 310 4 VI
7. 1-8-2015 Chewing Tobacco Rs. 1 310 4 VII
8. 25-8-2015 Chewing Tobacco Rs. 1 310 3 VIII
9. 1-9-2015 Chewing Tobacco Rs. 1 310 3 IX
10. 29-9-2015 Chewing Tobacco Rs. 1 310 5 X
11. 1-10-2015 Chewing Tobacco Rs. 1 310 5 XI
12. 1-12-2015 Chewing Tobacco Rs. 1 310 3 XII
13. 2-12-2015 Chewing Tobacco Rs. 1 310 4 XIII
14. 7-12-2015 Chewing Tobacco Rs. 1 310 4 XIV
17. Thus, it can be observed that prior to 1-3-2015, the applicable rate of
compounded levy on CT and ZST was same and thereafter rate of compounded
levy on ZST and CT was amended vide Notification No. 5/2015-C.E., dated 1-3-
2015 and the excise duty on ZST has been fixed at Rs. 27.05 lakhs which was less
by 11.59 lakhs to that Excise duty of 38.64 lakhs on Chewing Tobacco (CT). Simi-
larly, the rate of compounded levy of ZST has again been revised to 82.11 lakhs
by Notification No. 25/2015-C.E., dated 30-4-2015, as compared to duty liability
on CT which stood at 38.64 lakhs. With effect from 1-3-2016 the rate of Central
Excise duty on ZST and CT was made equal at the rate of 43.58 lakhs. The
aforestated amounts were on the monthly basis on single machine under the
compounded levy scheme. It is the contention of the Department that the appel-
lants declared their products sometime as ZST while on the other time CT de-
pending upon the rate of duty prescribed under the compounded levy scheme
by filing different declaration filed as per requirements, which is evident from
various declarations filed as mentioned above. On the other hand the appellants
contended that due to their business exigencies they have manufactured the
goods either ZST or CT and not on the basis of changing rate of duty which is
permitted under law.
18. Ld. AR has also submitted a copy of the adjudication order passed
by the Joint Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise, Bilaspur, vide which it is
held that the appellant has manufactured CT and not ZST in respect of M/s. Kay
Pan Sugandh. This order has accepted by the appellant attained its finality.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant with effect from 27-5-2015 has
changed the manufacturing of Chewing Tobacco, which is evident from the dec-
laration filed by the appellants as stated above. We find that from the very be-
ginning, it is the Department, not the assessee, who has changed its opinion re-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  314