2018 (4) TMI 100 - AT - Central Excise

Abatement of excess duty paid by the respondent - manufacture of Pan Masala - closure of Factory - case of Revenue is that the respondent did not intimate in these three days advance for closer of the factory, and thus are not entitled for the abatement - Held that - The intent of the Statute to give three days advance notice for sealing the machines, it does not mean that the machine shall be sealed only after days. The intent is that the machine should be sealed within three days - it is a fact on record that Departmental Officer themselves has sealed the factory on 31 August, 2011 the date which was holiday on account of 1du I Fitr , As the departmental officer worked and was necessary as acted on the said day, in that circumstances Department cannot claim that the said day was holiday, therefore, they have not given intimation three days in advance. The Committee of Commissioner has reviewed the impugned order in casual manner and have not acted seriously while proposing to file the appeal before Tribunal. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against abatement of excess duty paid by respondent
- Compliance with Rule 10 of Pan Masala Packing Machine Rules, 2008
- Review of the order by the Committee of Commissioners
- Departmental sealing of factory on a holiday
- Interpretation of the requirement of three days' advance notice for sealing machines

Analysis:
1. The appeal was made by the Revenue against the abatement of excess duty paid by the respondent, who manufactured Pan Masala and Gutkha under the Pan Masala Packing Machine Rules, 2008. The respondent intended to close their factory, duly informing the Department three days in advance as required by Rule 10 of the Rules. However, a dispute arose regarding the timing of the closure notification in relation to a public holiday, leading to the Revenue's contention that the abatement claim was not valid.

2. The Committee of Commissioners reviewed the order and found fault with the compliance of the respondent with Rule 10. They highlighted that the party failed to strictly observe the working days required for intimation of closure of the machines, as stipulated in the Notification No. 30/2008-C.E. The Committee emphasized the mandatory nature of the conditions under the Rules, emphasizing the importance of "three working days" and not just three days for compliance.

3. Despite the Department sealing the factory on a holiday due to Id ul Fitr, the Tribunal noted that the Departmental Officer's actions were necessary, and the purpose of the three-day advance notice was for convenience rather than a strict requirement for sealing after three days. The Tribunal upheld the abatement claim, emphasizing that the intent of the Statute was for the machines to be sealed within three days, not necessarily after three days.

4. Critically, the Tribunal expressed dissatisfaction with the Committee's casual review of the order and their decision to file an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal deemed this action as a wastage of valuable time and emphasized the need for serious consideration before proposing appeals to avoid such inefficiencies in the future.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, concluding that the abatement claim was valid based on the interpretation of Rule 10 and the circumstances surrounding the closure notification and sealing of the machines.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, the arguments presented by both parties, the legal interpretations made by the Tribunal, and the final decision rendered in the case.