9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 596X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008. The appellant vide their letter dated 25/3/09 intimated the Jurisdictional Central Excise authorities that they would be closing their factory w.e.f. 4/4/09 and requested for sealing the machine on that day. The Jurisdictional Central Excise officer sealed that machine on 4/4/09 but the remark of the officer does not mention the time of sealing. Similarly, the appellant vide letter dated 23/6/09 informed that they would be closing the factory from 3rd July 2009 and, as such, they would be working up for 2nd July, 2009 and also requested for sealing of the machine. The machine was sealed by the Range Superintendent on 3rd July 2009 and here also, the Superintendent's remark regarding sealing does no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umstances, the duty cannot be charged by treating the machine as functional on 4th April 2009 and 3rd July 2009 and, as such, the impugned order upholding the demand for these two days is not correct, that in this regard she relies upon the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Indore vs. Sai Pan Products reported in 2012 (281) E.L.T. 580 (Tri. Del.), wherein the Tribunal with regard to the provisions of Pan Masala Packing Rules had held that the day on which the factory was sealed cannot be treated as the day on which the factory had worked, just because the officer sealing the factory did not mention the time of sealing, that similar view has been expressed by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CCE, Chandigarh vs. D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r that the same cannot be operated. The other condition is that the period of abatement shall not be less than 15 days and that during the period of closure there will be no manufacturing whatsoever of the specified goods whatsoever and no removal of the goods shall be affected by the manufacturer. In this case, there is no dispute that the period of abatement is more than the specified limit and the intimation regarding closure of the factory had been given at least three days in advance. On first occasion, the appellant had intimated on 25/3/09 that they would be closing the factory from 4th April 2009 and on second occasion on 23/6/09 the appellant had intimated they would be closing the factory from 3rd July 2009. There is also no dispu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
