Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (2) TMI 55

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Division-III, Delhi-I. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant M/s. M.R. Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. were engaged in the manufacture of Pan Masala containing Tobacco commonly known as "Gutkha" falling under Tariff Items No. 24039990 and were paying duty under the Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 issued under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Notification No. 29/2008-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-7-2008, 30/2008-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-7-2008 and 42/2008-C.E., dated 1-7-2008. The applicants filed a rebate claim under Notification No. 32/2008-C.E. (N.T.), dated 28-8-2008 read with Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 in respect of Gutkha pouches exported by them along w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 12-3-2009 (12 days) was not admissible as the closure period in March, 2009 was less than the mandatory period of 15 days [as per Rule 10A ibid] and accordingly a part payment of Rs. 7,67,000/- cannot be considered as proper and appropriate duty on one FFS machine for March, 2009. Rule 9 of the said Rules ibid and clause (i) of the Notification No. 42/2008-C.E., dated 1-7-2008 expressly debar grant of rebate claim on the exported goods unless and until Central Excise duty has been paid thereon. 3. Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, applicant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected the same. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the applicant has filed this revision application under Sec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is correct in terms of the fourth proviso to Rule 9 of the 'Pan Masala Rules'. 4.4 Adjudicating authority and appellate authority failed to appreciate that the position has been clarified by the Central Government by issuing Notification No. 8/2010-C.E. (N.T.), dated 27-2-2010 which amended Rule 9 of the Pan Masala Rules by inserting eighth proviso to Rule 9. Adjudicating authority and appellate authority failed to appreciate that the above amending Notification is clarificatory in nature, clarifying intention of the Legislature behind framing of the Pan Masala Rules shall have retrospective effect. Therefore, duty paid by the applicant on proportionate basis for the period of production w.e.f. 13-3-2009 till the end of March, 2009 h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the above said exported goods had been rightly paid by the applicant. 5. The respondent department vide their written submission dated 2-7-2012 mainly stated as follows : 5.1 As per condition (i) of Notification No. 32/2008-C.E. (N.T.), dated 28-8-2008, to claim the rebate of duty paid on notified goods the duty should have been paid on excisable goods under Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944 as prescribed under Table-1 of the Notification No. 42/2008-C.E., dated 1-7-2008. According to the said Notification No. 42/2008-C.E. the duty prescribed in respect of one FFS machine manufacturing pouches of RSP Re. 1/- was Rs. 12.50 Lacs, since during the relevant month, the number of machines in operation was one, amount of Rs. 12.50 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nnot be treated as proper and appropriate duty on one FFS Machine for March, 2009. Accordingly, vide impugned Order-in-Original, original authority rejected rebate claim of the applicant. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld impugned Order-in-Original. Now, applicant has filed this revision application on grounds mentioned in para above. 9. Government observes that the original authority rejected the rebate mainly on the grounds that the part payment of Rs. 7,67,000/- by claiming abatement of 12 days is not proper and appropriate as much as abatement should be for the continuous period of 15 days under Rule 10 of Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008. In this regard, Government further notes .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates