9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 982X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng 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 gutkha pouches with RSP ₹ 1.00 on the 12 machines which they were using for manufacture of gutkha with RSP ₹ 1.50. It is also not in dispute that they have discharged the duty liability on the production capacity of these 12 machines based on the calculation that they are going to manufacture gutkha with RSP ₹ 1.50. - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee. - E/1804/2010-(DB), E/Cross/189/2010] - A/52084/2017–EX(DB) - Dated:- 3-3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Rules does not apply for accounting of demand and also they have paid the duty based upon the manufacture of gutkha of RSP ₹ 1.50 of these machines. The contention of the appellant was rejected by the adjudicating authority and after following the due process, confirmed the demand raised along with interest. 3. Ld. Counsel draws our attention to the provisions of Rule 8 and also to the retrospective amendment carried out in the proviso of Rule 8. He would submit that the retrospective amendment was considered by this bench of the Tribunal in the case of Trimurti Fragrance (P) Ltd vs. CCE, Kanpur 2015 (329) ELT 680 (Tri.-Del.) and it was held that demand cannot be sustained for manufacture of lower RSP gutkah for machine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the production capacity of these 12 machines based on the calculation that they are going to manufacture gutkha with RSP ₹ 1.50. 6. We find that identical issue came up before the bench of the Tribunal in the case of Trimurti Fragrance (P) Limited (supra) wherein the demands were raised for the months June 2009, July 2009, August, 2009, October and November 2009. The bench, after observing the provisions of Rule 8 and of Rule 10 and also the retrospective amendment, held as under:- 10. It is also seen that by Section 101 of the Finance Act, 2014, the First Proviso to Rule 8 of the PMPM Rules has been replaced w.e.f. 13 th April, 2010 by the following :- Provided that where a manufacturer uses an operating mac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicable to highest RSP on a machine during a particular month when during that month, on that machine, pouches of different RSPs had been produced. Moreover, it is well settled principle of the interpretation of the statute that different provisions of a statute must be construed harmoniously and, therefore, in this case, 1 st proviso to Rule 8 of the PMPM Rules cannot be interpreted so as to result in levy of duty on the quantity which is more than the deemed production per machine per month as specified in Rule 5. When for the purpose of Rule 5, in case of a packing machine manufacturing Gutkha pouches of RSP of Re. 1, the RSP of Re.0.50 piece is not a new RSP, for the purpose of First Proviso to Rule 8, it cannot be treated as new R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
