TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s required to be paid on quantity of pouches deemed to be produced on the basis of the number of operational packing machines installed in factory. As per these rules, the actual quantity of goods manufactured is immaterial. As on 15.07.2011, one packing machine was found to be operational. Consequently duty is liable to be paid as prescribed for one packing machine. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Excise Appeal Nos. 58693-58696/2013 (DB) - Final Order Nos. 57744-57747/2017 - Dated:- 7-11-2017 - Hon ble Mr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Hon ble Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate for the appellant Shri M.R. Sharma, DR for the respondent ORDER Per V. Padmana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h. Thereafter the statement of Shri Irshad Hussain, authorized representative, was recorded on 12.09.2011 as also on 05.01.2012 admitting use of the said machines but limiting the period to about a week or two days. 5. In the above back drop, proceedings were initiated resulting in passing of the present impugned order confirming the demand and imposing penalties. 6. Learned advocate, Shri Bipin Garg, submits that disputed machine in question was sealed at 5 or 6 different points by the officers on 03.03.2010. As such, when the officers visited the factory on 15.07.2011, even if they found one seal broken, the machines could not have been operational on account of presence of other seals. He submits that said machine is still availabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sumption, which is consistent during all the months, indicating that packing machine was being used regularly by the appellant. As such, he submits that the order may be upheld. 8. After considering the statements made by both sides, we find that short point required to be decided is whether the packing machine found in the appellant s premises was operational or not. The panchnama drawn by the officers on the date of their visit clearly reveals that the machine was in running condition and the appellant was engaged in the production of unmanufactured tobacco. One paper role was fixed on the top of the said packing machine and the tobacco was being packed in the same. Two labourers were working. The details of the work being done by such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the time of sealing of the machine on 03.03.2010, the duty on unmanufactured tobacco was required to be paid at normal rates. However, with effect from 08.03.2010, the duty was required to be paid in terms of Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010. 11. On 15.07.2011, the single machine in the appellant s factory was found not sealed and operational. As per the provisions of the Rules, duty is required to be paid on quantity of pouches deemed to be produced on the basis of the number of operational packing machines installed in factory. As per these rules, the actual quantity of goods manufactured is immaterial. As on 15.07.2011, one packing machine was found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
