2014 (2) TMI 206 - AT - Central Excise

Duty demand - Pan Masala or gutka - appellants addressed a letter dated 7.7.08 - the machines were sealed on 15.7.08, the Revenue entertained a view that appellant was liable to discharge its duty liability for the period from 1.7.08 to 14.7.08. - Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 - Held that - when, as per the appellants, their factory stopped production with effect from 1.7.08, the intimation was filed as late as 7.7.08. On 1.7.08 itself, the appellants was aware of the coming into existence of the said Rules, which raised liability against the assessee based upon the number of packing machines etc. installed in their factory. The fact of filing the late intimation about the closure of the factory, along with the fact of refusal to get the machines sealed, leads to unavoidable conclusion that the appellants factory was working right from 1.7.08 to 14.7.08, when their machines were actually put under seal on 15.7.08 - Confirmation of demand against the assessee along with interest and imposition of penalty is in accordance of provisions of Pan Masala Packaging Machine (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty), Rules, 2002 - Decided against assessee.

Issues:
1. Duty liability under Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules, 2008.
2. Compliance with notification requirements.
3. Sealing of machines and duty liability period.
4. Appeal against original adjudicating authority's order.
5. Claim of non-production and abatement.
6. Late intimation and refusal to seal machines.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the duty liability of the appellant under the Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules, 2008. The rules mandated excise manufacturers of specified goods to file a declaration immediately upon the rules' enforcement. The appellant, engaged in gutka manufacturing, submitted a letter to the Assistant Commissioner stating the cessation of zarda or pan masala mixture production from 1.7.08, when the rules came into effect. The Revenue contended that duty liability existed from 1.7.08 to 14.7.08, as the machines were sealed on 15.7.08, resulting in a demand notice and penalty imposition.

2. The compliance aspect focused on the appellant's late intimation about ceasing production and subsequent resistance to sealing the machines. The appellant's factory was visited for sealing on 11.7.08, but the partner refused, leading to the machines being sealed on 15.7.08. The delay in intimation and resistance to sealing raised doubts about the factory's operational status during the duty liability period, as the rules linked duty liability to machine installation rather than actual production.

3. The judgment addressed the period of duty liability concerning the sealing of machines and the appellant's claim of non-production. The appellant argued that no demand should be made as they ceased production post the rules' enforcement. However, the court found the appellant's actions contradictory, with late intimation and refusal to seal machines indicating continued manufacturing activity. Lack of evidence supporting non-production led to upholding the demand, interest, and penalty, in line with the rules' provisions.

4. The appeal against the original adjudicating authority's order was based on the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the demand and penalty. The appellate tribunal analyzed the facts, submissions by both parties, and the legal framework to determine the duty liability period and the appellant's compliance with the rules.

5. The appellant's claim of non-production and entitlement to abatement was scrutinized concerning the duty liability period. The court emphasized the importance of timely intimation and cooperation with sealing procedures to establish non-production credibly. The lack of substantial evidence supporting the appellant's claim weakened their position, leading to the rejection of the appeal.

6. The judgment highlighted the significance of timely intimation and cooperation with enforcement authorities in excise matters. The late intimation and refusal to seal machines by the appellant raised doubts about their non-production claim, ultimately resulting in the confirmation of duty liability, interest, and penalty. The court's decision was grounded in the rules' provisions and the appellant's actions during the duty liability period.

← Previous Next →