2011 (8) TMI 987 - AT - Central Excise

Abatement of duty - whether for claiming abatement from monthly duty liability on account of closure of unit, provided under Rule 10 of Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008, the minimum period of closure should be 15 days in a calendar month or whether the assessee can claim the benefit for a continuous period of 15 days not falling within the same calendar month - Held that - other rules provide for calculation of duty liability and manner of payment of duty to be deposited. The word month is not used in Rule 10. Instead the word period is used. There is no intendment of the idea canvassed by Revenue expressed in clear words in the Rule. Prima facie, we are of the view that the word month is omitted with clear intention that abatement should be allowed for any continuous 15 days. Therefore, prima facie, the appellant has made out a case for waiver of demand confirmed by the impugned order - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Rule 10 of Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 for claiming abatement from monthly duty liability on account of unit closure.

Analysis:
The main issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of Rule 10 of the Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008, specifically regarding the eligibility criteria for claiming abatement from monthly duty liability due to the closure of a unit. The dispute centers on whether the minimum period of closure required to claim this abatement should be 15 days within a single calendar month or if the benefit can be availed for a continuous period of 15 days not necessarily falling within the same calendar month.

Upon careful consideration, the tribunal analyzed the language of Rule 10 and noted that while other rules in the same set refer to calculations and payment of duty in relation to a "month," Rule 10 notably uses the term "period" instead of "month." The tribunal observed that the absence of the term "month" in Rule 10 indicates a deliberate choice to allow abatement for any continuous 15-day period, irrespective of whether it falls within a single calendar month or not. This interpretation is supported by the absence of a clear indication within the rule to align the abatement provision with the calendar month structure.

Consequently, the tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument and held that the word "month" being omitted from Rule 10 signifies an intention to permit abatement for any continuous 15-day period. As a result, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, granting a waiver of the demand confirmed by the impugned order. Furthermore, the tribunal ordered a stay on the collection of dues arising from the impugned orders for the duration of the appeals, acknowledging the prima facie case made by the appellant regarding the interpretation of Rule 10 and the entitlement to abatement for a continuous 15-day period as per the rule's language.