TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1054X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 and the machines was sealed under the supervision of the Range Superintendent on 09/10.12.2015. In absence of any other condition, rejecting the appellant’s claim of abatement of duty paid during the period of closure of the factory on proportionate basis, on the ground that 8 gms/ 10 gms the pouches with MRP of ₹ 5.00, manufactured on trial run but, without disclosing the same to the Dept., is untenable in law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/11977/2017 - Order No. A/10562 / 2018 - Dated:- 13-3-2018 - Dr D. M. Misra, Hon'ble Member ( Judicial ) For the Appellant : Shri P D Rachch, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri S K Shukla, Authorised Representative ORDER Per : Dr D. M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10, after filing necessary forms. However, later, on being directed they have deposited ₹ 20 lacs further considering the MRP of the pouch as ₹ 5.00 instead of ₹ 3.00 as declared. Consequently, they claimed abatement of duty of ₹ 39,69,548/- on account of closure/non-production of goods during 10.12.2015 to 31.12.2015 after deducting their liability of ₹ 16,21,452/-, payable calculating the MRP as ₹ 5/- for the period 1.12.2015 to 9.12.2015. The Adjudicating Authority sanctioned the refund of ₹ 39,69,548/- observing that there was no production due to the closure of the factory between 10.12.2015 to 31.12.2015. Aggrieved by the said refund order, the Revenue filed appeal before the Ld Commissioner ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant instead of manufacturing only pouches of 5 gms bearing MRP of ₹ 3/-, also on trial run basis produced 8 gms/ 10 gms of pouches bearing MRP of ₹ 5/-. Accordingly, the liability for payment of duty was arrived at ₹ 55.85 lacs for the whole month of December 2015, which the appellant had discharged. Also, the appellant had paid necessary penalty and fine for violation of the said Rules in producing pouches of 8 gms/10 gms of unmanufactured tobacco bearing MRP of ₹ 5/- After discharging the duty for the whole month, the appellant filed abatement for closure of the factory from 10.12.2015 to 31.12.2015 in accordance with Rule 10 of the said Rules. 6. To examine the admissibility of the abatement claim, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction, whereupon the seal fixed on packing machines would be opened under the physical supervision of Superintendent of Central Excise. 7. A Plain reading of the aforesaid Rule reveals that in the event the factory did not produce the notified goods for a continuous period of 15 days or more, the duty calculated on proportionate basis, shall be abated provided the manufacture of such goods files intimation to this effect to the Dept. at least before 3 working days from the commencement of the said period of closure. In the present case, there is no dispute of the fact that the intimation was filed on 4.12.2015 and the machines was sealed under the supervision of the Range Superintendent on 09/10.12.2015. Also, the other condition menti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
