9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 934X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a proportionate basis shall be abated in respect of such period provided the manufacturer follows the procedure laid down therein. In the instant case, the authority below has denied the abatement stating that the relevant provision is not applicable to the appellant since during the period prior to 16/04/2011, the appellant had not installed the machines in the factory. It is not disputed that the appellant paid whole duty of ₹ 12,25,000/- for the whole month against the second machine. It is also not disputed that the second machine was neither installed nor operated during the period from 01/04/2011 to 15/04/2011 (both days inclusive). Rule (C) provides that appellant is eligible for abatement during the period for which goods wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t on insistence by the Department, the appellant paid an amount of ₹ 12,50,000/-along with interest of ₹ 4,932/- on 12/04/2011 being the compounded duty for the full month of April 2011 in regard to the second machine. The appellant thereafter filed refund claim for the excess paid amount of ₹ 6,25,000/-. A show-cause notice was issued to the appellant proposing to deny refund on the ground that appellant is not eligible for the abatement claimed as per Rule 10 of the Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 (PMPM Rules). After adjudication, the original authority denied abatement claim which was upheld by the Commissioner(Appeals). Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both days inclusive). Rule (C) provides that appellant is eligible for abatement during the period for which goods were not produced if such period is not less than 15 days. In case, appellant has paid duty for whole month) as per compounded levy scheme, this Rule would help the appellant to get abatement for the period when goods are not produced. This is because no duty can be demanded when goods are not produced. Again, as per Rule 18, the appellants are not liable to pay duty upon the goods which are not produced by them as per the Central Excise Act and Rules. Therefore considering Rule 10 as well as the provisions of Central Excise Act, I am of the view that the appellants are entitled to abatement. The issue is covered by the judgmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
