TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 663X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation was given that the stock of stentered fabrics lying in the factory could be allowed to be removed during the period of closure, which is conterminous to Rule 10 of Pan Masala Rules, he gave his findings that on removal of previously manufactured Pan Masala which is not included in the proviso dealing with such removal, the benefit of abatement granted under Rule 10 of the Pan Masala Rules can be extended to the Appellant. The said findings are upheld - appeal dismissed. - APPEAL NO: E/1581, 1584/2010 - A/85417-85418/2019 - Dated:- 28-2-2019 - Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati, Member (Judicial) And Shri P. Anjani Kumar, Member (Technical) Shri A.B. Kulgod, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for appellant Shri D. H. Nadkarni, Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al no. E/1581/2010 challenging he reduction of duty demand from one month to three days. 3. In the memo of appeal and during course of hearing of the appeal, learned AR for appellant department Mr. A.B. Kulgod contended that under Rule 10 of the said Pan Masala Rules abatement is available in case, the factory did not produce the notified goods during any continues period of 15 days or more and duty can then be calculated on proportionate basis provided Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise is intimated and on his direction sealing of packing machine is done under the supervision of the Superintendent of Excise provided that during such period no manufacturing activity had taken place and no removal of goods wou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no manufacturing had taken place and the machines were sealed in compliance to the said rules for which appellants should not be burdened with the duty liability fasten ed on it. 5. We have heard from both the sides on both the appeals and peruse the relevant rule which came into force on 01/07/2008, M/s Prakash appellant contends that the said rules had gone to its knowledge on 3rd July 2008 and immediately its sought closure of the factory. I t also had not produce d any Gutka in the month of July and as per RG-1 wherein manufacturing of 700 pouch indicated was manufactured on 30th June and packed on 1st July. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in his order read at Para 10 had observed that appellant had failed to prove that the goods were man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
