Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 1187 - AT - Central ExciseAbatement u/r 10 of Pan Masala Packaging Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 - period of closure - Whether the period of closure of minimum of 15 days prescribed should be confined to any calendar month or it can spread over more than one month, and even if the number of days in case of continuous closure in a particular month is less than 15 days, whether the assessee shall be entitled to abatement? Held that - The issue herein is squarely covered in favor of the assessee by the Ruling of Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Vs Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. 2013 (9) TMI 775 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT , wherein under similar facts and circumstances the Hon ble High Court has held that The period 15 days may fall within a month or more than one month, provided it is continuous and that the assessee complies with other conditions set out in Rule 10 of the Rules of 2008 - Assessee is entitled to the benefit of abatement - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
- Interpretation of abatement under Rule 10 of Pan Masala Packaging Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008. - Whether the period of closure for availing abatement should be confined to a calendar month or can spread over more than one month. - Entitlement to abatement if the number of days in case of continuous closure in a particular month is less than 15 days. Analysis: 1. The appellant, a manufacturer of Pan Masala/Gutkha, operated under the PMPM Rules, 2008, paying duty on production capacity. The factory remained closed from 25/03/2012 to 17/04/2012. Declarations were filed regarding machine installation and discontinuation of RSP. Production commenced on 18th March, 2012, with duty deposited for March, 2012. An abatement claim of &8377; 8,12,903/- was filed for the period 25th March to 31st March, 2012, based on Rule 9 & 10 of PMPM Rules, 2008. 2. The adjudicating authority rejected the claim due to the factory being closed for 7 days in March, 2012, not meeting the continuous 15-day requirement. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, directing reconsideration of the abatement claim under Rule 10, noting the error in interpreting the 15-day period for each month. The ruling of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik Vs Prakash Products was cited. 3. The Revenue appealed against the Commissioner (Appeals) order. The issue was whether the closure period for abatement should be confined to a calendar month or could span over multiple months, especially if the continuous closure in a particular month was less than 15 days. The Tribunal considered the High Court ruling in Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Vs Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., emphasizing that the 15-day period could fall within a month or extend beyond, as long as it is continuous and other conditions of Rule 10 are met. 4. Consequently, following the High Court ruling, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the assessee's entitlement to abatement and consequential benefits as per the law. The judgment clarified the interpretation of the closure period for availing abatement under the PMPM Rules, 2008, providing guidance for similar cases in the future.
|