2018 (2) TMI 566 - AT - Central Excise

Refund/Abatement claim - non-production of chewing tobacco - Rule 10 of Chewing Tobacco and Un-manufactured Tobacco, Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010 under N/N. 11/2010-CE (NT) dated 27.02.2010 as amended - Held that - the assessee submitted calculation of abatement of duty for which the machine was in sealed condition during the relevant months. It is seen from the Adjudication Order that the production was running from 01.08.2014 to 08.08.2014 (8 days) and no other production was made on and from 09.08.2014 to 31.08.2014 i.e. for 23 days for which the abatement was claimed - abatement to be extended - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Claim for abatement under Rule 10 of Chewing Tobacco and Un-manufactured Tobacco, Packing Machines Rules, 2010. Interpretation of Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules 2008 regarding eligibility for abatement. Allegations of vague machine specifications and insufficient details. Calculation of abatement of duty based on sealed machine period.

Analysis:
The case involved the Respondent, engaged in Pan Masala manufacturing, seeking abatement under Rule 10 of specific regulations. The Revenue challenged the abatement, arguing that the machine closure did not meet the required specifications for eligibility. The main contention was the duration of the machine closure, which the Revenue claimed fell short of the 15-day continuous closure period mandated by the rules. The Respondent, however, provided evidence of closure exceeding 15 days, supported by certifications from jurisdictional officers confirming the non-production during the closure period.

The Commissioner (Appeals) findings emphasized the importance of informing the Department about machine closures exceeding 15 days, rather than providing reasons for closure. The judgment highlighted that the decision to suspend production is a business prerogative, and the Department cannot question the rationale behind it. The Respondent's compliance with machine specification requirements was also addressed, with the judgment dismissing claims of deceptive practices due to insufficient details, as the closure period met the eligibility criteria for abatement.

The judgment further analyzed the calculation of abatement, noting the specific period of machine closure and production activities. After thorough consideration of the facts and legal aspects, the appellate authority upheld the lower authorities' decisions, concluding that there was no justification to overturn the rulings. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, affirming the Respondent's entitlement to abatement as per the applicable rules and regulations.