9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1041X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d be leviable. The proviso to Rule 8 would not be applicable nor can there be a supposition that there would be deemed to be an addition in the number of operating packing machines for the month in question on the strength that a new retail sale price has come into existence on an existing manufacturing machine. The appellant is not liable to pay duty, as demanded in the impugned orders from the appellants in terms of Rule 8 of Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008, which is not attracted to the facts of the case. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/1301-1302/2011-EX[SM] - A/71128-71129/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 14-9-2017 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Shri A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. From ₹ 1.01 to ₹ 1.50 37,44,000 3. From ₹ 1.51 to ₹ 2.00 35,56,800 4. From ₹ 2.01 to ₹ 3.00 35,56,800 5. From ₹ 3.01 to ₹ 4.00 34,44,480 6. From ₹ 4.01 to ₹ 5.00 34,44,480 7. From ₹ 5.01 to ₹ 6.00 34,44,480 8. Above ₹ 6.00 33,69,600 Explanation . - For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pan Masala of only one RSP then the duty liability worked out to ₹ 25,00,000/- for Aug 08 and ₹ 12,50,000/- for Sep 08. This is also not in dispute. The position that they were manufacturing Pan Masala of two different RSPs on the same machine was intimated to the department on 10-07-08 and capacity was assessed by order dated 17-07-08 on that basis without counting each machine as two machines for the reason that Pan Masala of two different RSPs being manufactured on each machine. When ER1 Returns were filed Revenue was of the view that they should have paid twice the duty liability as stated above in view of the fact that the Appellants were manufacturing Pan Masala of two RSPs namely ₹ 0.50 per pouch and ₹ 1.00 pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s under:- 3. In the instant case, the assessee during the month of June, 2009, July, 2009, August, 2009, October, 2009 and November, 2009 filed the declaration as required under Rule 6 declaring its intention to manufacture certain kinds of pan masala pouches. The returns were also filed for these months which showed manufacture/clearances of pan masala with tobacco having RSP of 50 p. On the basis of this information provided by the assessee, the Department inferred that during the each of these months the assessee used the installed machines for manufacturing of pan masala with tobacco of having a retail sale price of ₹ 1 per pouch as well as having a new retail sale price of ₹ 0.50 and, on this basis, invoked the fir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew of aforementioned set of facts, Hon'ble High Court has observed, as under:- 8. In the light of the aforesaid, the expression new retail sale price has to be understood as contemplated under Rule 5 which specifies the deemed production per operating machine per month and this deemed production is specified for different RSP slabs. The rate of duty per machine specified in the Notification of 1 st July, 2008 is on its production, namely, if pouches up to ₹ 1.00 is manufactured, its deemed production would be 37,44,000 pouches. 9. Therefore, in our opinion, even if the machine manufactures in a particular month pan masala or pan masala with tobacco pouches of ₹ 50.0 and ₹ 1.00, its deemed producti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
