9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination And Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010 by declaring the packing machines as uninstalled and sealed has resulted in confirmation of duty demand on the basis of capacity of production of two machines; one being uninstalled and sealed on 29.02.2012 and the other being requested for such uninstallation and sealing w.e.f. 01.11.2012 vide adjudication order dated 20.12.2012 that got confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order dated 22.07.2013 is assailed before this Tribunal by the Assessee/Appellant. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that Assessee/Appellant was a manufacturer of excisable goods viz. Chewing Tobacco without lime tube falling under Chapter 2403 99 30 of the Central Exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ground that the machines were not removed from the factory premises due to operational and technical difficulty, duty demand was raised even after acknowledging that the first machine was uninstalled and sealed w.e.f. 29.02.2012 as per proviso to Rule 6(5) and in view of clear provision contained in Rule 6(2) second proviso, under no circumstances demand can be raised after 30 days of filing of declaration, since deeming provision would operate as binding acceptance of the declaration. He further argued that decision of this Tribunal passed in Appellant's own case reported in 2023 (9) TMI 290 - CESTAT Mumbai, on the same set of facts, in which it was held by this Tribunal that Order-in-Original being passed on 04.12.2012 against the dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alled in the factory and if the manufacture doesn't intent to operate any of those machines, Rule, 5 prescribes that uninstallation and sealing as well as removal from the factory premises was to be done by and under the supervision of Superintendent of the Central Excise but it's proviso permits nonremoval from the factory premises only when it is not feasible to remove and in such an event it has been to be un-installed and sealed by the Superintendent in a manner that it can't be operated. In his letter filed alongwith Form-1 declaration Appellant had clearly indicated that it was not feasible to remove the machines out of the factory and requested for sealing in such manner that it can't be operated. In the written submission filed befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
