2016 (11) TMI 997 - AT - Central Excise

Abatement and refund - closure of factory for a continuous period of 15 days - manufacturing of Chewing Tobacco and Un-manufactured Tobacco - Held that - I find that the plea regarding consideration of continuous closure in more than one month has not been raised at lower level - the issue raised at Tribunal is not a pure question of law but a question of law as well as fact it cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time in the Tribunal - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims under Chewing Tobacco and Un-manufactured Tobacco Rules, 2010 rejected for not meeting 15-day continuous closure requirement.

Analysis:
The appellants, M/s.PP Patel & Co., filed refund claims for closure periods in October 2010 and February 2011 under the Chewing Tobacco and Un-manufactured Tobacco (capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010. The rules allow abatement and refund for closures exceeding 15 days. The refund claims for October 2010 and February 2011 were partially accepted, but claims for specific days were rejected for not meeting the 15-day continuous closure criteria. The appellants challenged this decision before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the rejection, leading to the current appeal.

During the proceedings, the appellants did not appear but submitted written arguments. They contended that the closure periods in question extended beyond 15 days, citing a case precedent where closure periods across different months were considered for the 15-day requirement. However, the respondent argued that this argument was not raised before the lower authorities and was being introduced for the first time at the Tribunal level. Citing a previous case, the respondent emphasized that new grounds cannot be introduced at the Tribunal stage.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the issue of considering closure periods across different months was not raised at the lower levels. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of raising relevant issues at the appropriate stages of adjudication. As the issue raised at the Tribunal involved both questions of law and fact and was not previously brought up, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, emphasizing the importance of raising pertinent arguments at the appropriate stages of the legal process.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals on the grounds that the argument regarding considering closure periods across different months was not raised at the lower levels and could not be introduced for the first time at the Tribunal stage. The decision underscores the significance of raising relevant issues at the appropriate stages of legal proceedings to ensure proper adjudication.