Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 1144 - CESTAT NEW DELHIEntitlement for abatement - stoppage of production - Held that:- When a manufacturer of Gutka/Pan Masala is manufacturing Gutka/Pan Masala pouches of different RSPs and for a certain period of 15 days or more, he stops the production of only one particular RSP, he will not be entitled for abatement, if continues the production or clearances of Pan Masala/Gutka of other RSPs by operating those machines. As find that from the language of Rule 10 it is clear that for claiming abatement under Rule 10, there must be total Gutka/Pan Masala pouches which have to be sealed in such a manner that same cannot be operated and besides this, there should be no clearances of any specified goods during the period of stoppage of production for which abatement has been claimed. From the objectives of notifying the goods for assessment and collection of duty based on capacity of production, as mentioned in Section 3A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and from perusal of the Rules framed under Section 3A(1), it is clear that these rules have been framed keeping in view the widespread duty evasion by Pan Masala/Gutka manufacturers and the provisions of various rules of Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 including Rule 10 thereof must be seen in this background. The interpretation of Rule 10 sought by the appellant would be not only against the provisions of this rule but would also be against the smooth functioning of the system of collection of duty from Gutka/Pan Masala units, as envisaged under these Rules. It appears that it is not the case of the appellant that during the period of abatement, there was total stoppage of production and clearances. It is very much clear that there should be complete stoppage of the machine which is not in the matter in hand. Therefore, find that both the lower authorities have concluded correctly that the appellant has not satisfied the condition of the grant of abatement as production in the factory of the notified goods was in operation. Appellant is not entitled for abatement. - Decided against assessee
|