Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2013 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 775 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTClaim for Abatement of 11 Days - The claim was made by the respondent in terms of the provisions of Rule 10 of the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010 – Held that:- The abatement claim was rejected by the original adjudicating authority on the ground that insamuch as the unit was closed for 11 days only in the month of December, the respondents do not fulfill the criteria laid down under Rule 10. However on appeal Commissioner (Appeals), by taking note of the fact that the unit was closed continuously from 21.12.2011 to 20.2.2012 the claim of abatement has to be allowed. On the other hand, it is Revenues contention that inasmuch as in the month of December, 2011 the unit was closed for a period less than 15 days, abatement cannot be allowed. Relying upon Commissioner of Central Excise Lucknow vs. K.P. Pan Products (P) (Ltd) [2012 (11) TMI 723 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] - Rule 10 of Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 - Rule 10 does state that a continuous period falling under different calendar month should be split into periods falling under each month and abatement determined separately - The Tribunal further observed that so long as days of closure are continuous, even if days fall in different calender month, it will constitute one continuous period. Tribunal had not committed any error in upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, NOIDA as the requirement of Rule 10 was for continuous period of 15 days - The Rule does not provide that the period should be confined to any calender month - The period of 15 days may fall within a month or more than one months, provided it was continuous and that the party complies with other conditions set out in Rule 10 of the Rules of 2008 - there was no questions of law as raised arise for consideration in the appeal - The Appellate Authority as well as the CESTAT have not committed any error of law in allowing respondent's claim for abatement - Decided against Revenue.
|