9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 1392 - AT - Central ExciseAbatement - manufacture of Pan Masala and Chewing Tobacco - denial on the ground that the appellants failed to satisfy the pre-condition of filing intimation of closure of production activities within the stipulated period - Rule 10 of Pan Masala Rules, 2008 - Held that - Tribunal in the case of Classic Tobacco Products Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II 2016 (8) TMI 487 - CESTAT NEW DELHI has dealt with an identical issue and have observed that in as much as the Revenue sealed the machines even on two days notice, they cannot be now allowed to adopt Rule 10 for denying the abatement claim - in the case of M/s Sarla Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad 2016 (2) TMI 1039 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD , it was held that the non filing of advance intimation was held as not adverse to the assessee s claim - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Denial of abatement of duty due to failure to file intimation of closure of production activities within stipulated period. 2. Interpretation of Rule 10 of Pan Masala Rules, 2008 regarding the requirement of three clear working days advance intimation for closure of factory. 3. Appeal against the order granting relief to the assessee by Commissioner (Appeals). 4. Precedents related to the interpretation of Rule 10 and advance intimation requirement. Issue 1: Denial of Abatement of Duty The case involved the denial of abatement of duty to the respondents as they failed to file the intimation of sealing of the packing machine within the required period. The appellants requested sealing of a machine on a specific date, but the jurisdictional Superintendent sealed it after the factory remained closed for a period. The adjudicating authority denied the abatement, stating that the intimation was not filed at least three clear working days before the closure period, as mandated by Rule 10 of Pan Masala Rules, 2008. Issue 2: Interpretation of Rule 10 The Commissioner (Appeals) granted relief to the assessee, highlighting that the intimation of sealing was filed before the closure period, and there was a sufficient gap between the date of intimation and the commencement of abatement. The Commissioner emphasized that the adjudicating authority misjudged the three-day requirement, as per Rule 10. The Commissioner also compared another case where a similar situation led to the acceptance of abatement, questioning the inconsistency in the authority's decisions. The Commissioner stressed that once the machines were sealed, abatement could not be denied due to delayed intimation submission. Issue 3: Appeal Against Relief Granted The Revenue appealed against the order, arguing that the abatement granted was in violation of Rule 10, as they were not given three clear days' advance intimation for the factory closure. However, the issue had been settled by previous decisions, including one by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, rejecting the Revenue's appeal against a Tribunal decision. The Tribunal had also ruled in other cases that sealing machines on short notice did not justify denying abatement based on Rule 10. Issue 4: Precedents The judgment referred to various precedents, including decisions by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and different Tribunals, to support the interpretation of Rule 10 and the advance intimation requirement. These precedents emphasized that non-filing of advance intimation did not adversely affect the assessee's claim for abatement. The Tribunal's consistent stance in similar cases reinforced the rejection of the Revenue's appeal, as the issue had been conclusively settled by previous decisions. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the denial of abatement due to procedural lapses, the interpretation of Rule 10 regarding advance intimation, the relief granted by the Commissioner (Appeals), and the impact of relevant legal precedents on the case. The detailed analysis highlighted the importance of timely intimation for abatement claims and emphasized the need for consistency in applying legal provisions across similar cases.
|
