9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 697X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intent was discernible from a reading of these rules - Rule 7 of the Rules merely provides that duty payable shall be calculated for a particular month and Rule 9 of the Rules merely prescribes that monthly duty payable on notified goods, shall be paid by the 5th day of the same month. These rules cannot be pressed into service by the revenue in support of its view that abatement cannot be claimed for a fraction of a month - This apart, reference to a continuous period of 15 days or more under rule 10 of the Rules relating to the right of an assessee, pertains to its obligation, to inform the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, of closure of machines cannot be read in isolation to raise an inference that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Rules and have no hesitation in holding that order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any error of law, much less, in terms of the question of law, framed by the revenue, which reads as follows:- Whether the Tribunal is justified in allowing the abatement of duty of five days, i.e., 01-04-2011 to 05-04- 2011 on the consideration of the fact that though the duty liability is determined for each month separately yet the continuous period as stipulated in Rule 10 of Pan Masala Packing Machine (Capacity determination and collection of duty) Rule, 2008 is not required to be restricted for a particular month only? The respondent manufactures excisable items. The respondent made a request that all pouch packing machines be sealed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ealed, therefore, we are of the view that the claim of the respondent for abatement is fully justified under Rule 10 of Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules 2008 and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the abatement cannot be faulted. In view of the discussion above, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine. Admittedly, there was no production for a period of 36 days, i.e., from 01.4.2011 to 5.4.2011 including from 1.4.2011 to 5.4.2011. Reference by counsel for the appellant to Rules 7 and 9 of the Rules in support of his contention, that as duty liability is determined for each month, abatement cannot be granted for a fraction of a month, in our considered opinion, is misplaced as no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
