2016 (9) TMI 1627 - AT - Central Excise

Re-determination of Production Capacity - declaration in Form-I - provisos 1 and 2 to Section 3(A)(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 6(2) of the Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 - HELD THAT - The Assistant Commissioner was required to only determine the annual capacity of production and have exceeded jurisdiction in determining the duty payable per month. Accordingly, the later part of the impugned order determining that duty payable for the month of March, 2015 is quashed and set aside. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 6(2) of Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008.
2. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner in determining duty payable.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of Rule 6(2) of Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules
The appellant, a manufacturer of Pan Masala, filed a declaration under Rule 6(6) of the Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules for redetermination of their Production Capacity. The contention arose regarding the Assistant Commissioner's role as per Rule 6(2) to conduct necessary inquiries, approve the declaration, determine the maximum packing speed, and pass an order concerning the annual production capacity. The appellant argued that the Assistant Commissioner exceeded jurisdiction by determining duty payable for a specific month, which was beyond the scope of Rule 6(2).

Issue 2: Jurisdiction in Determining Duty Payable
The primary grievance of the appellant was that the Assistant Commissioner erred in determining the duty payable for a particular month, which was not within the purview of Rule 6(2). After hearing both sides, the Tribunal concluded that the Assistant Commissioner's role was limited to determining the annual capacity of production. The Tribunal found that the Assistant Commissioner had indeed exceeded jurisdiction by determining the duty payable per month. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed and set aside the part of the impugned order related to determining the duty payable for March 2015, thereby allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.

This judgment clarifies the scope of the Assistant Commissioner's authority under Rule 6(2) of the Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules and highlights the importance of adhering to the specified provisions while determining duty payable.