Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Kamal Kishor Jarda Bhandar Versus C.C.E. & S.T. Bhopal

2015 (12) TMI 1488 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Denial of Abatement claim - manufacture of branded unmanufactured tobacco - period of closure of factory - Whether the Phrase Continuous period of 15 days or more stipulated in Rule 10 of the said Rules would mean period of 15 days of a particular month or the same can be spilled over to the next calendar month, for computation of the period of 15 days - Held that:- factory of the appellant was closed during the period from 23.03.2013 to 26.09.2013. Though the factory was continuously closed for .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 No. 53246 /2015 - Dated:- 29-7-2015 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) For the Petitioner : Mr. Z.U Alvi, (Ad .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ty) Rules, 2010, framed by the Central Government vide Notification No. 11/2010-C.E. (N.T.), dated 27.02.2010 issued in terms of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The said rule prescribes the procedures and guidelines, which a manufacturer is required to follow, for manufacture and payment of duty on the notified goods. 1.1 During the disputed period, the appellant had installed one Gutkha Machine in its factory premises. On 11.3.2013, the appellant intimated the Jurisdictional Deputy .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

stallation. 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 d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

es. The said SCN was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner vide his order dated 4.7.2013 wherein the abatement claimed by the appellant was allowed by considering the verification report submitted by the Jurisdictional Range Superintendent, certifying that the machine was closed continuously for the period of 15 days. Feeling aggrieved with the said adjudication order, the Revenue preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenues appeal was disposed of by the Commissioner (Ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appellant was closed continuously for the period from 23.03.2013 till 26.09.2013. According to the Ld. 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 calenda .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Countering the Submissions of the Appellant, the Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order and submits that since the factory was not closed continuously for a period of 15 days during the month of March, 2013, the abatement has been rightly denied to the appellant. 4. Heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the records. 5. The short issue involved in this appeal for consideration by this Tribunal is, whether the Phrase Continuous perio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s closed only for 9 days, the 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 (supra), 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. The relevant paragraph of the said decision is extracted herein below: 7.We do .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version