Find a Lawyer

EXCISE APPEAL NO. 15/LB OF 1999, DECIDED ON 12TH MARCH, 2002. versus EXCISE APPEAL NO. 15/LB OF 1999, DECIDED ON 12TH MARCH, 2002.

Central Excise and Salt Act 1944 Section 3 Central Excise Rules, 1944, RR 210 and 226 Toilet Soap Laundry Soap Accounts Capture of Central Excise Duty was ordered to be paid on toilet soap during the last five years. Cleaning was done during the inspection soap toilet soap did not prove, but the accuracy of the laundry detergent, the appearance and smell and all other details visible to the naked eye, all the samples were of laundry soap and not of toilet soap which was central. Excise duty was exempt This amount was decided as central excise duty. As a result of the non-payment of soap by the adjusting officer, there was no justification for such heavy fines and the same amount was paid only Rs 5,000 as 662 cartons of toilet soap by the Central Excise staff at the factory. The diagnostic toilet containing 662 cartons of soap would pay the central excise duty, however, in lieu of confiscation, the penalty was reduced as the soap in question was brought to an extent over the past nine years. And the order was amended accordingly, the Tribunal Appellate Tribunal decided in the matter Er refuses, saying that if the investigators in the case and then having trouble deciding, then looking at the patterns of the brands that are found in the private records from the time of the detection of the scam. It was reported that the brands shown in the private record were of laundry soap and not toilet soap, though this problem could be solved only by visual examination. A. best advocate from Hattar lawyer