2017 (3) TMI 1147 - AT - Central Excise

Abatement of duty - manufacture of Gutkha - closure of the production activity - denial on the ground that on the ground that the Revenue authorities has not sealed each packing machine - Held that - Holistic reading of both the rules i.e. 6(5) & 10 of the Rules does not indicate that each and every machine has to be sealed by the authorities. The total mandate of the said rules is that abatement from the payment of duty should be granted to an assessee, only if there is non-production of gutka/ pan masala in the factory for a specified period - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules, 2008 regarding sealing of machines for abatement of duty.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI involved two interconnected appeals concerning the abatement of duty by a manufacturer of gutka/pan masala. The appellant had deposited duty for a specific period but later requested closure due to a festival, leading to sealing of the factory. The Revenue contested the abatement, citing non-compliance with Rules 10 and 6(5) of the Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules, 2008. The adjudicating authority upheld the demand due to alleged failure in sealing each packing machine. However, the Tribunal found the authority's decision flawed, as panchnamas confirmed sealing of the entire factory, rendering machines inoperative, as required by the rules.

The Tribunal highlighted Rule 6(5) emphasizing that machines not intended for operation should be sealed, ensuring non-production activity. It noted that the factory closure and sealing as per the panchnamas aligned with the rule's intent. Additionally, Rule 10 outlined abatement conditions for non-production of goods, requiring an intimation to seal packing machines, not necessarily each machine individually. The Tribunal emphasized that abatement hinged on non-production rather than individual machine sealing, as evidenced by the factual findings, leading to the unsustainability of the Revenue's claims.

Furthermore, referencing a previous case, the Tribunal reiterated that continuous non-production for a specified period warranted abatement, irrespective of monthly production cycles. The case law supported the appellant's entitlement to abatement due to the extended non-production period and proper sealing practices. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, concluding that the appellant's abatement claim was justified under the rules. The judgment emphasized adherence to the rules' spirit over technicalities, ensuring fair treatment based on factual circumstances.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis centered on the correct interpretation of the Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules, 2008, emphasizing the essence of abatement provisions regarding non-production and sealing requirements. The judgment underscored the importance of factual evidence in determining compliance and entitlement to duty abatement, providing clarity on the application of rules in similar cases for equitable outcomes.