9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntative, represented Revenue. Nobody appeared for the respondent. 3. As per facts on record, the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of pan masala containing tobacco, commonly known as gutkha under the brand name of Kaka . With effect from 01.07.2008, the Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 (PMPM Rules) were introduced vide Notification No.30/2008-CE(NT), dated 01.07.2008. As per Rule 9 of these PMPM Rules, the duty payable for a particular month shall be calculated by application of the appropriate rate of duty specified in the Notification No.42/2008-CE, dated 01.07.2008 to the number of operating packing machines in the factory during the month and as per Rule 9 of the PMPM Rules, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MPM Rules, the Show Cause Notice was adjudicated by the Joint Commissioner, who vacated the same, he observed as under:- "Thus, the party had paid the entire duty required to be paid for the period of 18.07.2008 to 31.7.08 and August 2008 by 5.8.08, the due date specified as per rule 9 of the PMPM Rules and its third proviso. As such there is no short payment of duty for the month of August 2008 by the party. Regarding charge of taking suo moto credit, instead of claiming refund of duty paid in excess for the month of July 2008, I find force in party s submission that the refund of duty as per rule 10 of the PMPM Rules is to be claimed when the unit was working and duty for the month was paid in advance by 5th of the month and thereafte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the month of July 2008 in excess of Rs. 39,51,613/- by the respondent. Further there is no dispute regarding closer of the unit from 01.07.08 to 17.07.08 and starting of production from 18.07.08. There is also no dispute regarding duty liability of the respondent for the period 17.07.08 to 31.07.08 and for the month August 2008. In this situation claiming of refund of Rs. 39,51,613/- for the month of July 2008 and demanding / depositing the duty liability of the same amount for the month of August 2008 is nothing but a revenue neutral exercise having no impact on the revenue." 6. Revenue in their Memorandum of Appeal have only contested that instead of making suo moto adjustments, the respondent should have applied for refund of du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
