9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to as said Rules) were introduced vide notification No. 30/2008-CE (NT) dated 1.7.2008. In terms of provisions of Rule 6 of the said Rules, every excise manufacturer of notified goods i.e. Pan Masala or gutka was required to file a declaration immediately on coming into force of these Rules with their jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, with a copy to the Superintendent of Central Excise. Such declaration was required to be filed immediately and not later than 10 days from coming into existence by the said rules. 2. It is seen that the appellants addressed a letter dated 7.7.08 to their jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, submittin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also imposition of penalty of identical amount under Rule 17 of the said Rules. 4. On appeal against the above order Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the impugned order and hence the present appeal. 5. After hearing both sides, duly represented by Ms. Rashi and Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocates appearing for the appellants and Shri B B Sharma, learned DR appearing for the respondent, we find that short question required to be decided is as to whether during the period 1.7.08 to 14.7.08, the appellants were required to pay the duty in terms of said Rules in question, which came into existence with effect from 1.7.08. It may not be out of place to mention that duty liability in terms of said Rules is based on number of packing machines insta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heir factory stopped production with effect from 1.7.08, the intimation was filed as late as 7.7.08. On 1.7.08 itself, the appellants was aware of the coming into existence of the said Rules, which raised liability against the assessee based upon the number of packing machines etc. installed in their factory. In such a scenario, if the appellant is not actually producing their product they would have intimated their Range Central excise authorities immediately. Not only that, when on receipt of such intimation, the Range authorities went to their factory for sealing of the machines, the partner of the appellant refused to get the same sealed. There is no reasoning advanced by the appellant as to why, when their factory was not working, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
