9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nied for abatement of 10 days of April,2011 under Rule 10 Held that:- The plea taken by department misconceived and is based on incorrect reading of Rule 10. Bare reading of the Rule shows, an assessee is entitled to abatement provided there has been no production in the factory for a continuous period of 15 days. The rule nowhere provides that continuous non-production of excisable goods should be during a given calendar month. There was no production in the factory of the assessee for a continuous period of more than 15 days, the benefit of abatement shall be allowed also for 10 days for the month of April, 2011. Therefore, claim of the assessee for abatement is fully justified. In favour of assessee - E/2023/2012 - A/959/2012-EX( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated during the said period : [Provided that during such period, no manufacturing activity, whatsoever, in respect of notified goods shall be undertaken and no removal of notified goods shall be effected by the manufacturer except that notified goods already produced before the commencement of said period may be removed within first two days of the said period :] Provided further that when the manufacturer intends to restart his production of notified goods, he shall inform to the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, of the date from which he would restart production, whereupon the seal fixed on packing machines would be opened under the physical supervision of Superi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epted the plea of the respondent for abatement in respect of 60 out of 65 machines and allowed abatement of Rs. 3,80,00,000/- giving benefit under Rule 10 of Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008. Accordingly, the Commissioner (Appeals) partly accepted the appeal against the order-in-original. 6. Learned Shri Sanjay Jain, DR for the appellant has contended that impugned order is not sustainable for the reason that the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly interpreted Rule 10 of Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008. Shri Sanjay Jain contended that correct interpretation of Rule 10 is that the assessee would be entitled to abatement only if the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
