Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 934 - CESTAT HYDERABADRefund claim - compounded levy scheme - abatement in case of non-production of goods - The appellant started production of Gutkha under compounded levy scheme w.e.f. 01/04/2011 with one machine and paid the duty under the compounded levy scheme. Subsequently the appellant installed another machine on 16/04/2011 and commenced production from 16/04/2011 onwards. - Held that: - Rule 10 of the PMPM rules speaks about the abatement in case of non-production of goods. That the said Rule states that when the factory did not produce the notified goods during any continuous period of fifteen days or more, the y duty calculated on a proportionate basis shall be abated in respect of such period provided the manufacturer follows the procedure laid down therein. In the instant case, the authority below has denied the abatement stating that the relevant provision is not applicable to the appellant since during the period prior to 16/04/2011, the appellant had not installed the machines in the factory. It is not disputed that the appellant paid whole duty of ₹ 12,25,000/- for the whole month against the second machine. It is also not disputed that the second machine was neither installed nor operated during the period from 01/04/2011 to 15/04/2011 (both days inclusive). Rule (C) provides that appellant is eligible for abatement during the period for which goods were not produced if such period is not less than 15 days. In case, appellant has paid duty for whole month) as per compounded levy scheme, this Rule would help the appellant to get abatement for the period when goods are not produced. This is because no duty can be demanded when goods are not produced. Again, as per Rule 18, the appellants are not liable to pay duty upon the goods which are not produced by them as per the Central Excise Act and Rules. Therefore considering Rule 10 as well as the provisions of Central Excise Act, I am of the view that the appellants are entitled to abatement. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|