2015 (8) TMI 495 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of refund claim - closure of the factory for 15 days or more is not in a particular calendar month and it is spilling over in two months - manufacture of Gutkha - production capacity based duty - Notification No. 30/2008-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-7-2008 - Held that - abatement is provided in case the factory did not produce the notified goods during any continuous period of 15 days or more, the duty calculated on a proportionate basis shall be abated in respect of such period. In the said Rule there is no mention that the period of 15 days or more should fall under a particular calendar month. Therefore, as per the plain reading of this Rule, the only requirement is that the period of 15 days or more should be a continuous period. The contention of the Revenue is contrary to the plain language of Rule 10 - No infirmity in the findings given by the Commissioner (Appeals). It was made absolutely in accordance with the provisions of Rule 10 and the same does not require any interference. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the impugned order is sustainable and the appeals filed by the Revenue are liable to be rejected - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of abatement rules for duty refund during factory closure
- Application of abatement rules to closure periods spanning multiple months
- Consideration of duty payment and refund eligibility during closure periods

Analysis:
1. Interpretation of Abatement Rules: The case involved a dispute regarding the interpretation of abatement rules for duty refund during factory closure. The respondent, engaged in manufacturing "Gutkha," filed a refund claim for duty during factory closure as per Notification No. 30/2008-C.E. The original authority rejected the claim, stating that closure should be within a particular calendar month for abatement. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund, emphasizing that closure for 15 days or more qualifies for abatement under Rule 10 of the Pan Masala Packing Machine Rules, irrespective of the month.

2. Application of Abatement Rules to Closure Periods: The Revenue argued that abatement applies only if the closure period of 15 days or more falls within a specific calendar month. Referring to the Pan Masala Packing Machine Rules, it was contended that duty payment is monthly, and closure should align with a single month for abatement. Contrary to this, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that Rule 10 does not restrict the closure period to a month, emphasizing that any continuous period of 15 days or more qualifies for abatement, regardless of spanning multiple months.

3. Consideration of Duty Payment and Refund Eligibility: The closure periods in question spanned multiple months, leading to a debate on duty payment and refund eligibility. The Commissioner (Appeals, after detailed analysis, concluded that the closure periods met the criteria for abatement under Rule 10. The appellant was found entitled to a refund for the closure days during the eligible period. The judgment highlighted discrepancies in the refund calculation by the adjudicating authority, leading to the allowance of the appeal with consequential relief for the appellant.

4. Final Decision: The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) orders, dismissing the Revenue's appeals. The judgment emphasized that the abatement rules do not confine the closure period to a single month, allowing for abatement during continuous periods of 15 days or more, irrespective of spanning multiple months. The decision was based on a thorough analysis of Rule 10 and the specific closure periods in the case, ensuring the appellant's entitlement to the refund as per the abatement rules.