2018 (6) TMI 306 - AT - Central Excise

Abatement - Valuation - manufacture of Pan Masala - Rule 10 of Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 - sealing of machinery - rejection of abatement on the ground that intimation not made within 3 working days - matter pending before Tribunal - Held that - The issue whether M/s Raj Products was eligible for abatement of ₹ 66,50,000/- for the period from 11.06.2012 to 25.06.2012, was pending before this Tribunal. Therefore, having filed appeal before this Tribunal regarding the said abatement Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur did not have jurisdiction to issue any show cause notice and adjudicate the matter which involved the said issue - The Officer of the Rank of Commissioner is not expected to conduct in such improper manner. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Abatement claim under Rule 10 of Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 for the period from 11.06.2012 to 25.06.2012.

Analysis:
The case involved two appeals related to abatement for the specified period under Rule 10 of Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules, 2008 concerning M/s Raj Products. The company had intimated the Central Excise Officers about halting production from 11.06.2012 and requested sealing of machines, which was done. The company paid duty for the machines but later claimed abatement for the period when the machines were sealed. The Divisional Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim, but the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed it, leading to a Revenue appeal (E/56791/2013).

A subsequent show cause notice was issued to M/s Raj Products regarding the abatement credit they took and utilized for duty payments. The Central Excise Commissioner demanded the duty amount, leading to another appeal by M/s Raj Products (E/50778/2015). The company argued that the abatement was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and thus the show cause notice was not valid.

The Tribunal found that the issue of abatement was pending before it, making the Central Excise Commissioner's actions improper. Despite M/s Raj Products' submissions, the Commissioner proceeded to adjudicate and impose penalties. The Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Original and upheld the Order-in-Appeal, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and allowing M/s Raj Products' appeal. The company was entitled to consequential relief as per the law.