9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010, framed by the Central Government vide Notification No. 11/2010-C.E. (N.T.), dated 27.02.2010 issued in terms of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The said rule prescribes the procedures and guidelines, which a manufacturer is required to follow, for manufacture and payment of duty on the notified goods. 1.1 During the disputed period, the appellant had installed one Gutkha Machine in its factory premises. On 11.3.2013, the appellant intimated the Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise for opening/ unsealing of the machine w.e.f. 18.03.2013, for operating the same for 5 days upto 22.03.2013 and for determining t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation report submitted by the Jurisdictional Range Superintendent, certifying that the machine was closed continuously for the period of 15 days. Feeling aggrieved with the said adjudication order, the Revenue preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenues appeal was disposed of by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 3.6.2014 wherein, while allowing the appeal of Revenue, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that since the factory was not closed continuously for a period of 15 days during the month of March 2013, the claim of abatement allowed by the original authority is not proper. Denial of abatement to the appellant is the subject matter of present appeal before this Tribunal. 2. The Ld. Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l for consideration by this Tribunal is, whether the Phrase Continuous period of 15 days or more stipulated in Rule 10 of the said Rules would mean period of 15 days of a particular month or the same can be spilled over to the next calendar month, for computation of the period of 15 days. It is an admitted fact on records that the factory of the appellant was closed during the period from 23.03.2013 to 26.09.2013. Though the factory was continuously closed for a period of about 6 months, the Department is of the view that since in the month of March 2013, the factory was closed only for 9 days, the benefit of abatement as provided in Rule 10 shall not be applicable. In this context, I find that the case of the appellant is supported by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CCE & ST vs Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. reported in 2013 (298) ELT 484 (All.) wherein, vide paragraph 7 in the said judgment the Honble High Court has held as follows. "7.A month may be a convenient method for assessment and deposit of excise duty. The respondent applied for abatement since it had deposited excise duty for the entire month of December, 2011. Since only 11 days were falling in the continuous period of closure beginning from 21-12-2011 to 20-2-2012 the respondent claimed for abatement of 11 days for the month of December, 2011. This would not mean that closure was for less than 15 days. The period of 15 days may fall within a month or more than one month, provided it is continu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
