Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (3) TMI 1144

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... erated and besides this, there should be no clearances of any specified goods during the period of stoppage of production for which abatement has been claimed. From the objectives of notifying the goods for assessment and collection of duty based on capacity of production, as mentioned in Section 3A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and from perusal of the Rules framed under Section 3A(1), it is clear that these rules have been framed keeping in view the widespread duty evasion by Pan Masala/Gutka manufacturers and the provisions of various rules of Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 including Rule 10 thereof must be seen in this background. The interpretation of Rule 10 sought by the ap .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010, it was observed that the appellant had packed manufactured branded chewing tobacco with the help of 2 packing machines during the said period. In accordance with Rule 6(4) read with Rule 8 of Packing Machine Rules, 2010, there were 2 operating packing machines installed in the factory premises of the appellant during the month. The Central Excise duty as prescribed vide Notification No. 16/2010-C.E., dated 27-2-2010 as amended by vide Notification No. 19/2010-C.E., dated 13-4-2010, was required to be calculated by the appellant under Rule 7 of the Packing Machine Rules, 2010 and the same was required to be paid by 5th day of the same m .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 7; 7,12,500/- for non-operation of second machine during 1-9-2011 to 15-9-2011 was not admissible as appellant has not fulfilled the condition of completely stopping the manufacturing activity, because their machine remained operative during the said period. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 14-12-2011 was issued to the appellant as to why their abatement claim of ₹ 7,12,500/- which was not in agreement with provisions of the relevant rules should not be rejected. Subsequently, vide the impugned Order-in-Original, the claim of abatement of duty of the appellant was rejected. 5. The Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the order of rejection of rebate claim by the assessment Commissioner. Aggrieved with the said order, the ap .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, with a copy to the Superintendent of Central Excise, at least seven days prior to the commencement of said period, who on receipt of 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 goods shall be effected by the manufacturer : Provided further that when the manufacturer intends to restart his production of notified goods, he shall inform to the Deputy Co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... arances of any specified goods during the period of stoppage of production for which abatement has been claimed. From the objectives of notifying the goods for assessment and collection of duty based on capacity of production, as mentioned in Section 3A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and from perusal of the Rules framed under Section 3A(1), it is clear that these rules have been framed keeping in view the widespread duty evasion by Pan Masala/Gutka manufacturers and the provisions of various rules of Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 including Rule 10 thereof must be seen in this background. The interpretation of Rule 10 sought by the appellant would be not only against the provision .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates