TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imilar closure of the factory and recommencement of production subsequently by obtaining fresh registration - The Rule 16 in the Pan Masala Rules corresponds to Rule 17 of the Chewing Tobacco Rules. The wordings are identical and these rules are to be considered as pari materia. The appellant will be entitled to the refund for the period 1st to 4th April in view of the fact that the Department had after surrender of registration on 29/05/2015, allowed registration w.e.f. 01/06/2015 without any objection or murmur. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/50939/2018-SMC - Final Order No. 52558/2018 - Dated:- 20-7-2018 - Hon ble Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member ( Technical ) Sh. Suhrid Bhatanagar, Advocate for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m of the appellant is that none of the machines were working since they remained sealed. But the Department rejected the refund claim by taking the view that the surrender of registration on 29/05/2015 and taking fresh registration w.e.f. 01/06/2015 cannot be considered as permanent discontinuation of the manufacture of goods and recommencement on 05/06/2015 by a new manufacturer. Aggrieved by the rejection of refund claim, present appeal has been filed. 2. We heard Shri Suhrid. Bhatnagar, Ld. Advocate for the appellant as well as Shri P. Juneja, Ld. DR for the Revenue. 3. The submissions urged on behalf of the appellant are summarized below:- i. The registration enjoyed by the appellant was formally terminated w.e.f. 29/05/2015 at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant, he contended that facts are different in the cited case law and hence may not be applicable. 5. Heard both sides and perused the record. 6. The facts are not in dispute. The registration certificate was surrendered w.e.f 29/05/2015 as per the intimation given to the Department. But the appellant obtained fresh registration w.e.f. 01/06/2015. It is to be noted that there has been no change in the name of the appellant, or in their constitution. The only apparent reason cited is entering into a new lease agreement with the landlord. But the premises where the factory continued operation w.e.f. 01/06/2015 remains the same. It is also not in dispute that between the period 29/05/2015 upto 04/06/2015, all the machines remained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he reason, they had re-opened the factory and such reading of the said provision, would be totally unjust, improper and against all cannons of natural justice and fair play. So, in such peculiar facts and circunstances of the case, we hold that the appellant is entitled to refund of the duty for closing down of their factory . 9. The Rule 16 in the Pan Masala Rules corresponds to Rule 17 of the Chewing Tobacco Rules. The wordings are identical and these rules are to be considered as pari materia. 10. In view of the above, I am of the view that the ratio of the above decision will be applicable to the facts of the present case. The appellant will be entitled to the refund for the period 1st to 4th April in view of the fact that the D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
