TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he benefit of abatement as provided in Rule 10 shall not be applicable. In this context, I find that the case of the appellant is supported by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kaipan Pan Masala (2013 (1) TMI 356 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI), holding that for computation of the period of 15 days, the remaining period in the next calendar month, during which the factory was closed, shall also be taken into consideration - appellant shall be eligible for abatement for the period from 23.03.2013 to 31.03.2013, which have been rightly allowed by the Original Authority. In view of above, the impugned order denying the abatement to the appellant is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - Excise Appeal No. E/54910/2014-E[SM] - Final Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allation of the machine w.e.f. 18.03.2013 and directed the appellant to pay the duty for the remaining part of the month from the date of installation. Subsequently, pursuant to the direction of Range Superintendent, the appellant had deposited ₹ 28,50,000/- as Central Excise Duty for the whole month of March (31 Days). Again on 19.03.2013, the appellant had requested the Jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities for sealing the machine w.e.f. 23.03.2013, and the Punchnama to this effect was drawn on the said date. 1.2 The appellant vide its letter dated 25.03.2013, requested the Deputy Commissioner for allowing abatement of duty of ₹ 23,90,322/-, after adjusting duty of ₹ 4,59,078/- for the 5 days operation (i.e. from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocate since the factory did not produce the notified goods for a continuous period of 15 days, the abatement provided in Rule 10 of the said Rules is applicable, which the Adjudicating Authority has rightly granted. It is the further submission of the ld Advocate that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that continuous period means the period must related to the relevant calendar month, and it cannot be extended or spill over to the next month. To support his above stand, the Ld. Advocate has relied on decision of this Tribunal in the case of CCE Bhopal vs Kaipan Pan Masala (P) Ltd. reported in 2012 (285) ELT 296 (Tri. Del). He further submits that though this decision was cited before the Commissioner (Appeals), but the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during which the factory was closed, shall also be taken into consideration. The relevant paragraph of the said decision is extracted herein below: 7.We do not find merit in above submission. The plea taken by learned DR is mis-conceived and is based on incorrect reading of Rule 10 quoted above. Bare reading of the above quoted Rule would show that as per the Rule, an assessee is entitled to abatement provided there has been no production in the factory for a continuous period of 15 days. The rule nowhere provides that continuous non-production of excisable goods should be during a given calendar month. Admittedly in this case, there was no production in the factory of the assessee for a continuous period of 36 days and all forty Gutk ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
