2018 (12) TMI 848 - AT - Central Excise

Refund/Abatement claim - closure of factory for a period of 15 days - Rule 10 of Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules 2008 - Held that - It is seen from the Adjudication Order that the production was running from 07.01.2015 to 15.01.2015 (9 days) and no other production was made on and from 01.01.2015 to 06.01.2015 and again from 16.01.2015 to 31.01.2015 in the month of January, 2015 i.e. for 22 (in Ex. Appeal No.75145/2016) for which the abatement was claimed. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Orders-in-Appeal related to abatement claim for non-production of pan masala without tobacco and nicotine.
2. Contention regarding Pan Masala Packing Machine's specifications and closure duration for abatement eligibility.
3. Verification and sanction of claims by Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise.
4. Interpretation of rules regarding machine details declaration and abatement payment.
5. Dispute over production and non-production periods of pan masala without tobacco and nicotine.

Analysis:

1. The appeals were filed by the Revenue against Orders-in-Appeal related to the abatement claim for non-production of pan masala without tobacco and nicotine. The Respondent, engaged in manufacturing, filed the claim under specific rules. The Assistant Commissioner sanctioned the abatement, leading to Revenue's appeals against the Commissioner (Appeals) decisions upholding the orders. The main issue revolved around the abatement claim, prompting the Revenue to file the appeals.

2. The Revenue contended that the Pan Masala Packing Machine's specifications were not adequately mentioned, and the closure duration did not meet the eligibility criteria for abatement. The Respondent argued that the closure was for non-manufacturing activities for over 15 days. The Commissioner (Appeals) findings highlighted the machine details declaration requirements and the permissible closure duration for abatement eligibility. The Commissioner's decision emphasized compliance with rules and lack of grounds for denying the abatement.

3. The claims were verified and sanctioned by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, supporting the Respondent's position. The Advocate for the Respondent requested dismissal of the appeals filed by the Revenue, emphasizing the proper verification and sanctioning of the claims by the competent authority.

4. The Commissioner's detailed analysis focused on the machine details declaration, abatement payment provisions, and the interpretation of rules regarding duty payment from abated amounts. The Commissioner clarified that no penalty could be imposed for minor technical infractions and that the abatement was essentially a refund of duty paid in cash, with specific rules governing duty payment.

5. The appeals related to different periods of production and non-production of pan masala without tobacco and nicotine. The abatement calculations were based on the sealed condition of the machine during specific months, with production details outlined for each appeal period. After considering the facts and legal aspects, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' orders, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision based on the interpretation of relevant rules and legal provisions.