9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 804X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufactured tobacco packing machines" (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules 2010. 1.2. The appellant has submitted a declaration dated 07.10.2014 following the provisions of Rule 6 of Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules 2010. Wherein the appellant has intimated to the Deputy Commissioner that they intend to close their entire factory from mid night on 16th October, 2014. The assessee has again informed the department vide his letter dated 20.10.2014 as per the provisions of Rule 6 of the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules 2010 stating that they are again going to start ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate Authority has not been considered at all. 2.1. It has further been contended that all the conditions as mentioned in the Rule of 2010 has been fulfilled by the appellant. It is further been mentioned that as provided under the Rule 10, the appellant is entitled for the proportionate abetment of the duty for the days for which the factory has not worked for producing of notified goods. There is no denying of the fact that the intimation of the closure of the factory was given much before stipulated time under Rule 10. It has also been submitted that there is no dispute on the facts that factory did not produce the notified goods for continuous period of 15 days and they have complied all the conditions as laid down in the Rule 10 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that had the intention of the legislation was that all the goods be removed within two days of the closer period, the proviso of the Rule 10 would have been worded differently. It is therefore submitted that interpretation of the appellate authority is not correct by interpreting the word "May" as "Shall". 3. We have also heard the Authorized Representative of the department who has reiterates the finding as given in the impugned order in appeal. We have heard both the sides and feel that before proceeding further in the matter it will be relevant to have a glance of the provision of Rule 10 of Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules 2010. The Rule 10 is r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oduction, whereupon the seal fixed on packing machines would be opened under the physical supervision of Superintendent of Central Excise." 3.1. It is categorically provided in the rule that if assessee does not manufacture notified goods for continuous period of 15 days or more, he will be entitled for the proportionate abetment of the duty which is deposited at the beginning of the month. For availing this abetment the most important conditions that assessee has to fulfill is that they shll intimate the department 3 days in advance of the closure of the packing machines so that concerned superintendent of central excise visits units and seals the packing machines. The proviso to rule 10 provides that no removal of notified goods shall be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition as there was stock of notified goods lying with them. I find that from the facts and evidences on record in the present case, it is proved that the appellant was having the stock of notified goods, which were produced earlier, even after the lapse of two days from the commencement of the closure period. The rule 10 above provides for the removal of the goods, which were produced before commencement of the closure period, within two days from the closure period. Thus the appellant submission that there is no contravention of the above provision does not stand. Hence, I hold that the impugned order to disallow the application of the appellant for abatement is legal." Thus, the only ground on which the Commissioner (Appeal) has rejected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd should be given effect to. It is also one of the cardinal principles of interpretation of any statue that some meaning must be given to the words used in the section. Expression "Wire rods and wires" which is mentioned in item no. (xv) would not and cannot cover the expression "tools, alloy and special steels of entry no. (ix) nor it would refer to the expression "Iron and Steel" as each item used in entry nos. (ix) and (xv) are independent items not depending on each other at all as has been held in the case of Pyare Lal Mehrotra (supra). 35. In arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, we find support from the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Hansoli Devi reported in (2002) 7 SCC 273 wherein this Court held that it is a cardin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
