Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (10) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2017 (10) TMI 76 - AT - Central Excise


Issues Involved:
1. Denial of abatement for factory closure under Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules, 2008.
2. Demand of duty and interest for non-operation of packing machines.
3. Non-imposition of penalty by the Commissioner.
4. Entitlement to abatement for cleared raw material and packing goods.

Analysis:

1. The first issue pertains to the denial of abatement for factory closure under the Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules, 2008. The appellant argued that they did not violate any provisions by taking suo moto abatement, citing a ruling by the Gujarat High Court. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, relying on the precedent set by the Gujarat High Court, and ruled against the Revenue.

2. The second issue revolves around the demand of duty and interest due to non-operation of packing machines. The Tribunal determined that the restarting of factory operations post-closure constituted an increase in the number of operating packing machines, requiring duty payment by the 5th day of the following month. As the duty was paid on time, the Tribunal held that no interest was payable by the appellant.

3. The third issue concerns the non-imposition of a penalty by the Commissioner under Section 11AC of the Act. The Tribunal did not delve into this issue explicitly in the judgment, indicating that no penalty was imposed by the Commissioner in this case.

4. The final issue addresses the entitlement to abatement for cleared raw material and packing goods. The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving the same appellant, where it was held that the term "goods" in the context of abatement referred only to notified goods, not inputs. The Tribunal upheld this interpretation, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant and directing the Adjudicating Authority to grant the refund with interest within a specified timeframe.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by the appellant and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, granting consequential benefits to the appellant in accordance with the law.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates