9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 982X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of Duty) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Rules') was operating 58 machines for manufacturing Gutkha with RSP Rs. 1.00 and 12 machines with RSP Rs. 1.50 per pouch, respectively. During the month of September 2008, the appellant discharged the duty liability as ascertained under the Rules, based upon the functioning of 58 machines manufacturing gutkha with RSP Rs. 1.00 and 12 machines with RSP Rs. 1.50. In the mid of September 2008, the appellant started using 12 machines which manufactured gutkha of RSP 1.50, for manufacturing gutkha with RSP Rs. 1.00, after intimating to the jurisdictional departmental authority. The Revenue issued show cause notice demanding duty on the gutkha manufactured by these 12 machines with RSP Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levant period. The said Rule provides that if the manufacturer commences manufacturing of the goods of a new retail sale price during the month on an existing machine, it shall be deemed to be an addition in the number of operating packing machine for the month. We find that with the retrospective amendment in the Finance Act, 2014, the said proviso is amended to read as that where a manufacturer uses an operating machine to produce pouches of different retail sale price during a month, he shall be liable to pay the duty applicable to the pouches of the highest the retail sale price for the whole month. In the case in hand, it is not disputed that in mid of September 2008, under intimation to the department, the appellant had manufactured g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the 6th proviso to Rule 9 and is also in accordance with the provisions of Rule 5 and this retrospective amendment to Rule 8 of PMPM Rules, shows that it was not the intention of the Government that in a case where in a month a particular machine is used to produce Gutkha pouches of more than one RSP, each RSP is to be treated as separate machine for the purpose of charging duty, but the intention was to charge duty in such a situation at the rate applicable to the highest RSP. For this reason also, there is no reason for interpreting the first proviso to Rule 8 during the period prior to 13-4-2010 in a manner which would result in levy of duty on the quantity which is more than the deemed production per machine per month as specified i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
