2016 (8) TMI 487 - AT - Central Excise

Abatement of duty - Rule 10 of Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machine (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010 - machine lying sealed during the period 10.11.2011 to 30.11.2011 - intimation for closure of the machine was given just two days prior to the actual closure whereas the Rules require intimation of 3 days. Held that - it is found that intimation was admittedly given, the appellant s factory was admittedly visited by the officers and the machine was admittedly sealed on 09.11.2011 and admittedly continued to remain sealed during the period 10.11.2011 to 30.11.2011. In such a scenario, the raising of objection by the Revenue cannot be appreciated. It is also found that in terms of Rule 10 the requirement for abatement claim is closure of the factory itself. The appellant started working on their second installed machine w.e.f. 27.11.2011 and with such working factory, cannot be held to be closed. As such the complete closure of the factory was only for the period 10.11.2011 upto 26.11.2011. All the other conditions of rule 10 having been satisfied by the appellant for the view of the abatement claim of the assessee is required to be given for the period 10.11.2011 to 26.11.2011. The same would be requantified by the adjudicating authority and allowed to the assessee. - Appeal disposed of

Summary

Issues: Abatement claim under Rule 10 of Chewing Tobacco Rules; Rejection of abatement claim by Revenue; Compliance with notice requirements under Rule 10; Factory closure for abatement eligibility; Tribunal's precedent on abatement benefit denial.

In this case, the appellant, engaged in manufacturing chewing tobacco, sought abatement under Rule 10 of the Chewing Tobacco Rules for the period when one machine was sealed. The Revenue rejected the abatement claim citing late intimation and the factory not being entirely closed. The original adjudicating authority and Commissioner upheld the rejection, leading to the present appeal. The dispute centered on the abatement claim for the period of factory closure. The Tribunal analyzed Rule 10's requirement of factory closure for abatement eligibility. It noted the factory was fully closed from 10.11.2011 to 26.11.2011, satisfying the 15-day closure condition. The Revenue's objection on timely notice was dismissed as the machine was sealed promptly after intimation. The Tribunal referenced a prior decision emphasizing that abatement should not be denied for late intimation. Despite the factory reopening partially on 27.11.2011, the Tribunal held that the abatement claim for the closed period should be allowed, subject to quantification by the adjudicating authority.

The Tribunal clarified that Rule 10 mandates factory closure for abatement, which was met during the period in question. Despite the factory reopening partially during the relevant time, the complete closure from 10.11.2011 to 26.11.2011 satisfied the abatement conditions. The Tribunal emphasized that all other Rule 10 requirements were fulfilled by the appellant, warranting the allowance of the abatement claim for the closed period. The decision highlighted the importance of factory closure as a prerequisite for abatement eligibility under Rule 10, ultimately directing the adjudicating authority to quantify and grant the abatement to the appellant for the specified period.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the appellant's abatement claim under Rule 10 for the period of factory closure, despite partial reopening. The decision underscored the significance of factory closure as the key criterion for abatement eligibility under the Chewing Tobacco Rules. By addressing the objections raised by the Revenue and citing relevant precedents, the Tribunal emphasized the need to fulfill Rule 10 conditions for abatement entitlement, leading to the allowance of the appellant's claim for the closed period.