9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent ORDER After hearing both the sides I find that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of chewing tobacco falling under Chapter 24 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 and during the relevant period was working under the provisions of "Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machine (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010. As per facts on record the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne, which was being used for manufacture of pouches of Rs. 2 MRP and was lying sealed during the period 10.11.2011 to 30.11.2011, in terms of Rule 10 of the said rules. The Revenue proposed to reject the abatement claim on the grounds that intimation for closure of the machine was given just two days prior to the actual closure whereas the Rules require intimation of 3 days. Further, the aba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wal, Ld. Counsel for the appellant and Shri Dharam Singh, DR for the Revenue, I find that the dispute relates to abatement claim of the assessee for the period 10.11.2011 to 30.11.2011. The said claim was filed by the assessee in terms of Rule 10 of the Chewing Tobacco Rules in question. The said rule allows abatement in a case where the factory did not produce the notified goods during a continuo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee days period, as provided under the said rule they could have sealed the machine after a period of 3 days from 08.11.2011. The fact that the machine was sealed within a period of two days of intimation itself shows that the Revenue is not strict about the fact of three days notice. Otherwise also I find that the issue is no more res integra and stands settled by the Tribunal's earlier decision. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d installed machine w.e.f. 27.11.2011 and with such working factory, cannot be held to be closed. As such the complete closure of the factory was only for the period 10.11.2011 upto 26.11.2011. All the other conditions of rule 10 having been satisfied by the appellant I am for the view of the abatement claim of the assessee is required to be given for the period 10.11.2011 to 26.11.2011. The same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
