9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 1370 - AT - Central ExciseRefund claim - abatement for non-production of notified goods for a continuous period of 15 days - Held that - Proviso to Rule 6(5) of Rules, 2010 had given an option to the manufacturer in case, the machine is not feasible to remove from the factory, it shall be uninstalled and sealed by the Superintendent of Central Excise in such manner that it cannot be operated - it is clear that the Superintendent while sealing the packing machines in one case, categorically mentioned that the machine is sealed in such a manner that it cannot be operated. But in the other report, it has not been mentioned categorically - the report dated 19.10.2015 is inconsonance with the provisions of proviso to Rule 6 (5) of the Rules, 2010. In the other report, there is no indication that it cannot be operated. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues Involved:
Refund claims for abatement under Rule 10 of Rules made under Central Excise Act, 1944 - Compliance with provisions of Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines Rules, 2010 - Interpretation of Rule 6(5) - Sealing of machines by Superintendent of Central Excise - Justification of rejection of refund claims by Commissioner (Appeals). Analysis: Issue 1: Refund Claims for Abatement under Rule 10 of Rules made under Central Excise Act, 1944: The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of Jarda Scented Tobacco, filed refund claims for abatement due to non-production of notified goods for a continuous period of 15 days as per Rule 10 of Rules made under Central Excise Act, 1944. The Adjudicating Authority initially rejected the refund claims, leading to the filing of appeals by the appellant against the Order-in-Appeal No.68,67/SH/CE(A)/GHY/2016. The Commissioner (Appeals) modified the adjudication orders, prompting the appellant to file further appeals. Issue 2: Compliance with Provisions of Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines Rules, 2010: The Commissioner (Appeals) based the rejection of the refund claims on the provisions of sub-rule (5) of Rule 6 of the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines Rules, 2010. The Commissioner observed instances where the appellant had failed to comply with the requirements, leading to the rejection of abatement claims for specific periods. The Commissioner scrutinized the actions of the appellant concerning the installation and sealing of packing machines as per the prescribed rules. Issue 3: Interpretation of Rule 6(5) and Sealing of Machines by Superintendent of Central Excise: The crux of the matter revolved around the interpretation and application of Rule 6(5) of the Rules, 2010. This rule mandates that machines not intended for operation must be uninstalled and sealed by the Superintendent of Central Excise. The rule provides an option for sealing in cases where removal from the factory premises is not feasible. The Commissioner analyzed reports prepared by the Superintendent regarding the sealing of machines to determine compliance with the rule. Discrepancies between reports led to a detailed examination of whether the machines were sealed in a manner preventing operation. Issue 4: Justification of Rejection of Refund Claims by Commissioner (Appeals): The Commissioner (Appeals) justified the rejection of refund claims based on the findings related to the sealing of machines by the Superintendent of Central Excise. Discrepancies in the reports and lack of explicit mention of the machines' inoperability in one instance led to the dismissal of the appellant's arguments. The Commissioner's decision was supported by the observations that aligned with the provisions of Rule 6(5) of the Rules, 2010. In conclusion, the judgment delves into the meticulous examination of the appellant's refund claims, emphasizing compliance with statutory rules and the justifications provided by the Commissioner (Appeals) for rejecting the appeals. The detailed analysis of the provisions of the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines Rules, 2010, and the interpretation of Rule 6(5) formed the crux of the decision-making process in this case.
|
