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. Classic Tobacco Products, Ajmer Versus C.C.E. Jaipur-II

2016 (8) TMI 487 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Abatement of duty - Rule 10 of Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machine (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010 - machine lying sealed during the period 10.11.2011 to 30.11.2011 - intimation for closure of the machine was given just two days prior to the actual closure whereas the Rules require intimation of 3 days. - Held that:- it is found that intimation was admittedly given, the appellant's factory was admittedly visited by the officers and the machi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ctory was only for the period 10.11.2011 upto 26.11.2011. All the other conditions of rule 10 having been satisfied by the appellant for the view of the abatement claim of the assessee is required to be given for the period 10.11.2011 to 26.11.2011. The same would be requantified by the adjudicating authority and allowed to the assessee. - Appeal disposed of - E/50152/2014-EX(SM) - FINAL ORDER NO. 52617/2016-EX(SM) - Dated:- 19-7-2016 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Shri O.P. Agarwal, 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

there were total three machines installed in their factory premises. However, the other two machines were lying sealed and the tobacco of ₹ 2 MRP per pouch was being manufactured only with one machine. The appellant on 08.11.2011 intimated the Revenue that the said working machine would not be showing any production during the period 10.11.2011 to 30.11.2011 and accordingly requested the Revenue to seal the same, as per the provision of the said rules. The same was sealed on 09.11.2011 an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

timation for closure of the machine was given just two days prior to the actual closure whereas the Rules require intimation of 3 days. Further, the abatement claim was sought to be rejected by observing that Rule 10 allows abatement only when the entire factory is closed and not when only one machine is sealed. In as much as the appellant started functioning of their second machine w.e.f. 27.11.2011 it cannot be said that the factory was closed. Further, the Revenue sought to reject the abateme .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

or the Revenue, I find that the dispute relates to abatement claim of the assessee for the period 10.11.2011 to 30.11.2011. The said claim was filed by the assessee in terms of Rule 10 of the Chewing Tobacco Rules in question. The said rule allows abatement in a case where the factory did not produce the notified goods during a continuous period of 15 days or more. Admittedly, the appellants factory was closed fully from 10.11.2011 to 26.11.2011, when they started using their another machine w. .....

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