2016 (11) TMI 348 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - Abatement of excise duty - Pan Masala/ Gutkha/Chewing Tobacco - the grounds of appeal which were already adjudicated by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) have again been made out as grounds of appeal before this Tribunal without pointing out as to how the findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) are unsustainable - Held that - the grounds of appeal which have been adjudicated by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) have been made as grounds of appeal before this Tribunal without giving any justification and argument as to why the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on the said grounds of appeal are not sustainable. I, therefore, hold that the grounds of appeal before this Tribunal are not sustainable and I reject the Appeal. The respondent shall be entitled for all the consequential reliefs, as per law - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Abatement of Excise duty under Rule 10 of Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules, Challenge to Order-in-Original dated 03-09-2013, Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), Grounds of appeal, Adjudication by Commissioner (Appeals), Appeal before Tribunal, Sustainability of grounds of appeal.

In the case, the respondent, a manufacturer of Pan Masala/ Gutkha/Chewing Tobacco, applied for abatement of Excise duty under Rule 10 of Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules, 2008, for a specific period. Initially, the abatement claim was for 5 days, but later revised for more than 15 days. The Divisional Assistant Commissioner verified and allowed the abatement. The Revenue appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals), challenging the Order-in-Original dated 03-09-2013, on the grounds that the respondent wrongly paid Central Excise duty on two machines and did not change the Retail Sale Price (RSP) as per Rule 7. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original order, noting that a new RSP was declared during the month. The Revenue then appealed to the Tribunal, reiterating the same grounds without new additions. The Revenue contended that the impugned orders should be set aside, while the respondent argued that the appeal grounds were already adjudicated by the Commissioner (Appeals) and should have been supported by justifications. The Tribunal found the grounds of appeal unsustainable, lacking justification for challenging the Commissioner (Appeals)'s findings. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, granting the respondent all consequential reliefs as per law.

This judgment primarily dealt with the abatement of Excise duty under Rule 10, challenges to the Order-in-Original, the appeal process before the Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal, and the sustainability of appeal grounds. The case highlighted the importance of providing justifications and arguments to support appeal grounds, especially when they have been previously adjudicated. The Tribunal emphasized the need for clear reasoning and sustainable arguments when challenging lower authorities' decisions to ensure a fair and thorough review of the case.