Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Rohit Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE-Raipur

2015 (10) TMI 2080 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Denial of abatement claim - Closure of production - Pan Masala Packing Machines - whether the assessee/appellant has intimated the Assistant Commissioner three days prior to the closure of production - Held that:- There is no dispute that the Fax No. belongs to the concerned Central Excise office to which intimation has to be sent. When the officers have gone to the premises of the factory on 3.09.2013 itself to seal the machines, they had no case that they had received the intimation only on 3. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

onclusions are merely based on assumptions and presumptions. The Fax report along with statement of Panchnama and the totality of facts establish that appellant has given the intimation on 30.08.2013. When the appellant has given intimation three days prior to the date of closure, the denial of refund/abatement is unjustified. The same has to be allowed. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. E/55812/2014-EX[SM] - Final Order No. 52936/2015 - Dated:- 17-9-2015 - Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S., M .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008. The appellant wanted to stop production and on 30.08.2013 submitted letter to the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division-I, Bhilai with copy to Jurisdictional Range-Superintendant. The officers visited the factory on 3.9.2013 and the machine was uninstalled and sealed. The appellant paid duty liability of ₹ 14 lakhs on 27.09.2013 along with interest. Subsequently on 22.11.2013, appellant filed application for abatement as p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ner (Appeals) allowed the appeal rejecting the claim for abatement. Aggrieved the assessee is before the Tribunal. 3. The only issue that poses for consideration is whether the assessee/appellant has intimated the Assistant Commissioner three days prior to the closure of production. The relevant provision Rule-10 of Pan Masala Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 is noticed as under: Rule 10 Abatement in case of non-production of goods.-In case a factory did not p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

such intimation shall direct for sealing of all the packing machines available in the factory for the said period under the physical supervision of Superintendent of Central Excise, in the manner that these cannot be operated during the said period; [Provided that during such period, no manufacturing activity, whatsoever, in respect of notified goods shall be undertaken and no removal of notified goods shall be effected by the manufacturer except that notified goods already produced before the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. 0788-224Z802 which is official Fax No. of Central Excise Division-I, Bhiali. Appellant also submitted Fax Transaction Report dated 30.08.2013. It is also their case that copy of such intimation dated 30.08.2013 was submitted to Superintendent, Jagdalpur on the same day. It is the case of Revenue that the intimation reached their office only on 3.09.2013 and has not reached on 30.08.2013. The observation of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order is as under: On perusal of the said Fax .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eport, the word COM. E-6 is found mentioned, which may amount to Error. This has also not been explained by the respondent in their defence submission. There is evidence on relevant file of the rebate claim that the said intimation was received in the Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division-I, Bhilai only on 03/09/2013. 5. In this regard, the observation of the adjudicating authority in order-in-original is as follows: The assessee vide their letter dated 30.08.2013 address .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version