Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2017 (9) TMI 1370

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d 19.10.2015 is inconsonance with the provisions of proviso to Rule 6 (5) of the Rules, 2010. In the other report, there is no indication that it cannot be operated. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Ex. Appeal Nos. 76958, 76959/16 - Order No. F/O/77371-77372/2017 - Dated:- 14-9-2017 - Shri P. K. Choudhary, Hon ble Judicial Member Shri T. R. Rustagi, Adv. for the Appellant Shri A. K. Biswas, Supdt. (A.R.) for the Revenue ORDER Per Shri P. K. Choudhary The present appeal is filed by the appellant against the Order-in-Appeal No.68,67/SH/CE(A)/GHY/2016 both dated 24.08.2016 passed by Commr. of Central Excise (Appeals), Customs S. Tax, Guwahati. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Chewing tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010 and thus their claim of abatement for the period from 01.10.2015 to 07.10.2015 for 07 days is liable to be rejected. 6.9 In regard to claim of abatement for the period from 20.10.2015 to 31.10.2015 for 12 days, I observe that for this period the machine was uninstalled and sealed on 19.10.2015. I have also observed that it is evident from the sealing order dated 19.10.2015 issued by the concerned Superintendent certifying that due to non-feasibility of removal of the packing machine, the machine is sealed in such a manner that it cannot be operated. Therefore, I find that in this occasion the condition as laid do .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ays, I observe that for this period the machine was uninstalled and sealed on 19.10.2015. I have also observed that it is evident from the sealing order dated 19.10.2015 issued by the concerned Superintendent certifying that due to non-feasibility of removal of the packing machine, the machine is sealed in such a manner that it cannot be operated. Therefore, I find that in this occasion the condition as laid down in the Chewing tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010, has been complied, thus I hold that the appellant is eligible for abatement for the period from 01.11.2015 to 06.11.2015 for 6 days proportionately and may be given accordingly. 6.10 In view of the ab .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t clear that in case it is not feasible to remove the machine, then the Superintendent of Central Excise would seal the machine in such manner that it cannot be operated, which would be revealed from the records of the case. 8. In the present case, in Appeal No.E/76958/2016, I find that the Superintendent of Central Excise on 19.10.2015, had sealed the packing machines and prepared the report as under : In pursuance of Order C.No.V(30)02/CL/CB/ACA/2015/4396 dated 14.10.15 of the Assistant Commissioner, CE S.T. Division, Agartala, the Sanko Rotary Type Single Track FFS Machine having identification No.120323479 has been uninstalled and sealed on 19.10.2015 at 23.50 hours under my supervision and assisted by Shri Gautam Das Choudhur .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... us, there is a distinction between the two reports as mentioned above. The ld. Counsel on behalf of the appellant argued that the sealing of the machines would show that it cannot be operated. Further, it is contended that there is no material on record that the sealed machine was operated. I am unable to accept the contention of the ld.Counsel for the appellant. I find that the report dated 19.10.2015 is inconsonance with the provisions of proviso to Rule 6 (5) of the Rules, 2010. In the other report, there is no indication that it cannot be operated. Hence, I agree with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). The ld.Counsel referred to various case laws. None of the case laws are relevant in the facts and circumstances of the present .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates