2017 (10) TMI 118 - AT - Central Excise

Abatement - duty paid under Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines Rules, 2010 - abatement claim was rejected by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the abatement claim sanctioned by the adjudicating authority for November, 2014, the order has been set aside by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) therefore they are not entitled for abatement claim for the month of December, 2014 - Held that - it is not disputed that the factory of the appellant remains closed during the period from 08.12.2014 to 22.12.2014 for 15 days. As per the Rule 10 of Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines Rules, 2010, the appellant is entitled for abetment claim of duty paid as their factory remain closed for 15 days - It is the fact on record that on 04th December, 2014 when the appellant paid the duty for the month of December, 2014 the abetment claim for November, 2014 was sanctioned and the same has been utilized for payment of duty for the month of December, 2014 - the appellant is entitled for abetment claim - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Abatement claim denial for duty paid under Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines Rules, 2010.

The appellant appealed against the denial of the abatement claim for duty paid under the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines Rules, 2010 by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant had paid duty in advance for November 2014 but filed an abatement claim as the factory was closed for more than 15 days. The claim was initially sanctioned but was later rejected for December 2014 by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the reasoning that the abatement claim for November 2014 had been set aside. The appellant argued that they were entitled to the abatement claim for December 2014 as well, given the circumstances of their claim and payment history. The Revenue supported the findings of the impugned order. The Tribunal noted that the factory was closed for 15 days in December 2014, making the appellant eligible for the abatement claim as per Rule 10 of the relevant regulations. The Tribunal found that the appellant had paid the duty for December 2014, even though the abatement claim for November 2014 had not been fully adjusted until a later date due to departmental insistence. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to the abatement claim for December 2014 and set aside the impugned order, upholding the adjudicating order for sanctioning the abatement claim. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any.