2017 (10) TMI 1041 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - pan masala or gutka - duty based on the capacity of packing machines installed in their factory - applicability of Rule 8 of Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 - Held that - similar issue decided in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Kanpur Versus M/s. Trimurty Fragrances (P) Ltd. 2015 (11) TMI 320 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT , where it was held that Even if the machine manufactures in a particular month pan masala or pan masala with tobacoo pouches of 50.0 and ₹ 1.00, its deemed production would still be 37,44,000 pouches on which duty would be leviable. The proviso to Rule 8 would not be applicable nor can there be a supposition that there would be deemed to be an addition in the number of operating packing machines for the month in question on the strength that a new retail sale price has come into existence on an existing manufacturing machine. The appellant is not liable to pay duty, as demanded in the impugned orders from the appellants in terms of Rule 8 of Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008, which is not attracted to the facts of the case. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 8 of Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008.
2. Duty liability for manufacturing Pan Masala of two different Retail Sale Prices (RSPs) on the same machine.
3. Applicability of the first proviso to Rule 8 in determining duty liability.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of Rule 8 of Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules
The case involved a dispute regarding the duty liability for manufacturing Pan Masala with different RSPs on the same machine. Rule 8 of the Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules was central to the interpretation of the duty calculation. The rule specified the alteration in the number of operating packing machines in case of addition, installation, or removal of packing machines during a month. The rule also addressed the situation where a manufacturer commences manufacturing goods of a new retail sale price during the month. The interpretation of this rule was crucial in determining the duty liability for the appellants.

Issue 2: Duty liability for manufacturing Pan Masala of two different RSPs
The appellants were manufacturing Pan Masala with two different RSPs on the same machine, leading to a disagreement with the revenue department regarding the duty liability. The revenue department contended that the appellants should pay twice the duty liability due to manufacturing Pan Masala of two RSPs. This disagreement resulted in the confirmation of a differential duty based on the provisions of the first proviso to Rule 8. The duty calculations for different periods were disputed, leading to a detailed examination of the duty liability for manufacturing Pan Masala with varying RSPs.

Issue 3: Applicability of the first proviso to Rule 8
The appellants argued that the provisions of Rule 8 were not applicable to their case, citing a judgment by the Allahabad High Court in a similar matter. The High Court's decision in the case of M/s Trimurty Fragrances Pvt. Ltd. was pivotal in the analysis. The High Court's interpretation of the first proviso to Rule 8 in a comparable scenario influenced the decision in the present case. The court held that the appellants were not liable to pay duty as demanded by the revenue department, as Rule 8 was deemed inapplicable to the facts of the case based on the precedent set by the Allahabad High Court.

In conclusion, the judgment provided a detailed analysis of the interpretation of Rule 8 of the Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules, the duty liability for manufacturing Pan Masala of different RSPs, and the applicability of the first proviso to Rule 8. The decision was influenced by the precedent set by the Allahabad High Court, leading to the setting aside of the impugned orders and allowing the appeals with consequential relief.

← Previous Next →