M/S. Ijm Cigarette Co. Pvt. Ltd vs Cce & S.T.-Ludhiana

Pronounced on:22.09.2015

Appeal No. E/55731 and 55737/2014-EX[SM]

[Arising out of orders-in-appeal no. LUD-EXCUS-000-APP-231-14-15 dt. 10.10.2014 and LUD-EXCUS-000-APP-218-14-15 dt. 12.09.2014 passed by Commissioner (Appeal), Central Excise Commrate Chd-1, ]

For Approval and Signature:

Honble Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)

1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for Publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?

M/s. Naghia Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

M/s. IJM Cigarette Co. Pvt. Ltd. Appellants

Vs.

CCE & S.T.-Ludhiana Respondents

Appearance: Shri Sudhir Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant.

Shri B.B. Sharma, DR for the respondent.

Coram: Honble Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)

Final Order No. 52933-52934/2015

Per: Sulekha Beevi C.S.

The issue involved in both the above appeals being same, they were heard together and are disposed by this Common order.

2. The allegation is that appellant who is manufacturer of Cigarette though working under physical control did not maintain records/accounts as per CBECs Excise Manual of Supplementary Instructions 2005, CBECs Instructions No. 224/37/2005-CX. 6 dated 24.12.2008 and did not submit quarterly return as prescribed in the Commodity Manual for cigarettes. Two show cause notices for the periods 4/2011 to 9/2011 and 10/2011 to 12/2011 were issued to the appellant. These notices were defended by the appellant stating that there are no provisions in the Central Excise Rules, 2002 requiring maintenance of records as per Cigarettes Manual. Under the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944, there were specific provision for maintaining daily account of Tobacco Products manufactured and submission of returns thereto under Rule 93 and 94 of Central Excise Rules. That there are no corresponding provisions existing in the Central Excise Rules, 2002. However, the notice culminated in the order-in-original which imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000 under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. In appeal, the same was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Aggrieved, the appellant is before the Tribunal.

3. The anyalysation of the issue does not require much exercise as it is clear from the law; that there is no requirement under the Central Excise Act, 1944 or the Central Excise Rules, 2002 which prescribes to maintain accounts/records or file quarterly returns as alleged in the show cause notice. Moreover, in the appellants own case for an earlier period the Tribunal has held in favour of the appellant and has set aside penalty. I do not find any reason to take a different view. Applying the ratio laid in the Final Order No. A/54772-54773/2014-SM[BR] dated 10.12.2014 , I hold that the impugned order is unsustainable.

4. In result, the impugned order is set aside and appeal allowed with consequential relief, if any.

(Pronounced in the open court on 22.09.2015)

(Sulekha Beevi C.S.)

Member (Judicial)

Ritu

2