TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 848X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O/76581-76586/2018 - Dated:- 24-5-2018 - SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri S. S. Chattopadhyay, Supdt. (A.R.) for the Revenue Shri A.K. Das, Adv. for the Respondent (s) ORDER Per Shri P.K. Choudhary: These appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the Orders-in-Appeal Nos.25,24,/Kol.III/15 both dated 16.10.2015, 43/Kol.III/16 dated 17.02.2016, 142/Kol.III/2016-17 dated 17.11.2016, 143/Kol.III/2016-17 dated 17.11.2016 193/Kol.III/2016-17 dated 04.01.2017 all passed by Commr. of Central Excise (Appeals), Kolkata. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Respondent is engaged in the manufacture of Pan Masala without Tobacco and Nicotine classifiable under Chapter 21 of the Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le for abatement. But in this case the assessee has only closed down for 6 days. 7. The assessee contended that the machine was closed down for more than 15 days continuously for non-manufacturing activities. For the proper appreciation of the case, the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) are reproduced below : 11. Now coming to the issue as regards the allegation of furnishing vague and incomplete description of the machines in question, I first lay my hand to rule 6 of PMPM Rules. Rule 6(vii) requires the manufacturer of notified goods to declare the name of the manufacturer of each of the packing machine, its identification number, date of its purchase and the maximum packing speed on which which they can be operated for packi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a continuous period of 15 (fifteen) days and not following the said procedure of furnishing details may result in imposition of penalty against the respondents, but will not result in denial of the substantive benefit available to them in terms of the rules, in question. In absence of any such proposal for imposition of penalty for such alleged minor technical infraction as alleged, there is no scope for confirming penalty. 12. Coming to the point as regards payment of duty from the abated duty amount sanctioned earlier vide orders dated 15.09.2014 14.10.2014 (supra), I find that there is no specific provision to deny payment of duty from the claim amount of abatement sanctioned and duty abatement is nothing but refund of duty paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... continuous period is restricted to a month. Therefore, I am of the considered view that it can be any period starting from any duty in a month and ending on any day in the same or another month. Therefore, the abatement given to the party cannot be faulted as there is no dispute as the continuity of fifteen days or more as spelt out in Rule of the said PMPM Rules. I also find no material force in the arguments put forth on the other issues by the Department claiming that the respondents fraudulently claimed abatements with ulterior motive. Therefore, the very basis on which the edifice of the entire arguments has been built up rests on assumption and presumption and lacks conviction to sustain. 8. The present appeals relate to the di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
