9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 341 - AT - Central ExciseAbatement of duty - Rule 10 of the Pan Masala Packing Machines (capacity determination & collection of duty) Rule 2008 (PMPM) - Closure of factory - Held that - Application of intimation for closure from 15.01.2013 was given on the 10.01.2013 and was received in the office of Assistant Commissioner as well as Superintendent on same day. There is no dispute that on 11.01.2013, which was a holiday, the Assistant Commissioner gave the orders for sealing of the machines. This is clear from the first paragraph of the punchnama of the sealing. There is also no dispute that the sealing as per the requirement of Rule was done on 14.01.2013 at 23 32 hours and after completion of the period of the closure, the machines were desealed at 10 10 Hours on 01.02.2013. When the purpose of giving prior intimation is three working days prior to commencement of closure, that the officers have enough time to seal the machines in the manner as prescribed in this rule, and this purpose has been achieved as the sealing of the machines in the manner prescribed was done on 14.01.2013 in pursuance of the orders given by the Assistant Commissioner on 11.01.2013, the Conditions of the intimation of closure being given at least three working days prior to closure lose its significance and the benefit of abatement cannot be denied on the ground that intimation of less than three working days prior to closure. Just because of this technical requirement this substantive benefit in terms of the Rule 10 of the abatement of duty for the closure cannot be denied. We, therefore, hold that the impugned order is not correct. The same is set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Abatement of duty for factory closure under Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules, 2008. Detailed Analysis: The case involved the appeal of a Gutkha manufacturer seeking abatement of duty for the period of factory closure under the Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules, 2008. The appellant's factory was closed from 15.01.2013 to 31.01.2013, and they followed the procedure by submitting an application for abatement of duty to the Assistant Commissioner as per Rule 10 of the PMPM Rules. The Assistant Commissioner initially allowed the abatement, but the Commissioner (Appeals) later reversed this decision, citing that the intimation for closure was not given three working days prior to the closure. This led to the appellant filing an appeal along with a stay application and a miscellaneous application for early hearing. The appellant argued that they had submitted the closure application on 10.01.2013, which was received by both the Assistant Commissioner and Superintendent on the same day. The sealing of machines was done on 14.01.2013 as per the Assistant Commissioner's order, even though it was a holiday. The appellant contended that the purpose of the three working days intimation rule was fulfilled by the timely sealing of machines, as per the judgment in the case of Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers vs Deputy Commissioner. They also referred to a Tribunal case, Maharaja Processors vs CCE Delhi-III, to support their argument that technical requirements should not deny substantive benefits. On the other hand, the Department defended the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the importance of giving prior intimation of three working days as per Rule 10 of the PMPM Rules. They argued that the intimation given on 10.01.2013 should not be counted as one of the working days for closure commencement. The Tribunal analyzed Rule 10 of the PMPM Rules, which required three working days' intimation for factory closure abatement. The purpose of this intimation was to allow officers enough time to seal the machines effectively. In this case, the intimation was given on 10.01.2013, received by both offices the same day, and machines were sealed on 14.01.2013 per the Assistant Commissioner's order. The Tribunal concluded that the substantive benefit of abatement should not be denied due to a technicality, especially when the purpose of the intimation rule was fulfilled. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal, stay application, and miscellaneous application were allowed.
|
