2013 (9) TMI 773 - HC - Central Excise

Fixation of Annual Capacity - The issue was related to fixation of annual capacity of the production in terms of the Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection) Rules, 2008 - Held that - The machines were sealed and Revenue s submission was in the arena of assumption and presumption - For using the said machines, the seal had to be broke open which can only be done with the consent and permission of the Revenue - As such there was no merits in the Revenue s appeal. The reasoning recorded by the CESTAT was upheld that once the machines were sealed and there was no evidence that the machines were de-sealed, without which they could not be used for manufacture, the imposition of the excise duty, only on the ground that since the machines had wheels and could be moved out, was based only on assumptions and presumptions - All the Central Excise Authorities had concurrently held that the dues were proposed to be imposed only on assumptions and presumptions - The questions of law as framed do not arise for consideration in this case Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing Central Excise Appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Interpretation of Rule 6(5) of the Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules 2008 regarding sealing and operation of machines.
3. Whether the imposition of excise duty based on assumptions and presumptions is valid.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addressed a delay in filing a Central Excise Appeal, which was reported to be delayed by 68 days. The court considered the explanation for the delay and decided to condone it, allowing the appeal to proceed with a regular number.

2. The appeal involved the interpretation of Rule 6(5) of the Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules 2008. The key questions of law revolved around whether certain packing machines, which were sealed and could be moved out of the factory, should be considered as installed and operating within the factory for the purpose of duty liability determination. The court noted that the machines were sealed by the department, and the central excise authorities imposed liability based on the machines' mobility despite being sealed. The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dismissed the appeal, stating that the machines being sealed prevented their operation without the revenue's consent, hence rejecting the revenue's appeal.

3. The court agreed with CESTAT's reasoning that the excise duty imposition solely based on the assumption that the sealed machines could be moved out of the factory was unfounded. The judgment highlighted that there was no evidence of the machines being unsealed, and the excise duty imposition was deemed to be solely on assumptions and presumptions. The court concurred with the lower authorities that the proposed dues were based on assumptions and presumptions, leading to the dismissal of the Central Excise Appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment delved into the issues of delay in filing the appeal, the interpretation of statutory rules regarding the sealing and operation of machines, and the validity of imposing excise duty based on assumptions and presumptions. The court's decision to dismiss the appeal was based on the lack of evidence supporting the excise duty imposition and the reliance on assumptions regarding the machines' operability outside the factory premises.