9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 1035X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 012 on the ground that during this period appellant had not discharged the correct duty liability under the Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "PMPM Rules"). 3. Ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant would take us through the show cause notice and Order-in-Original and submit that it is undisputed that during the period in question, appellants were operating different numbers of pouch packing machines for manufacturing of pan masala without tobacco and pan masala containing tobacco. He would submit that the appellant during the relevant period had not declared a particular production of pan masala containing tobacco having MRP of Rs. 2.50 pac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lants, which in our prima facie view, seems to be incorrect. We find that the Rule 5 of the PMPM Rules specifically talks about the deemed production and has to be read in order to appreciate the correct position : "RULE 5. Quantity deemed to be produced. - The quantity of notified goods, having retail sale price as specified in column (2) of the Table below, deemed to be produced by use of one operating packing machine per month shall be as is equal to the corresponding entry specified in column (3) of the said Table : TABLE Sl. No. Retail sale price (per pouch) Number of pouches per operating packing machine per month (1) (2) (3) 1. Up to Re. 1.00 56,16,000 2. Exceeding Re. 1.00 but not exceeding Re. 1.50 56,16,000 3. Exce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acturing activity under Forms 1 & 2 it would, in our view may not be of much consequence as the table hereinabove reproduced clearly indicates a range of MRP on which duty liability needs to be discharged. It is undisputed that during the material period appellant had discharged the duty liability as arrived under the PMPM Rules. Prima facie, additional duty demanded from the appellant seems to be unsustainable.
8. In view of the foregoing, we find that the appellant has made out a prima facie strong case in their favour. Accordingly, we allow the application for the waiver of the pre-deposit of the amounts involved and stay the recovery thereof till the disposal of appeal.
(Active part of the order pronounced in the Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
