9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 566X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imed - abatement to be extended - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal Nos. E/76017 to 76019/2015 and E/76057/2015 - ORDER NO.FO/78776-78779/2017 - Dated:- 27-12-2017 - Shri P.K.Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri S.S.Chattopadhyay, Suptd.(AR) for the Appellant None for the Respondent ORDER Per Shri P.K.Choudhary 1. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Respondent is engaged in the manufacture of Pan Masala without Tobacco and Nicotine classifiable under Chapter 21 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They filed Refund/Abatement claim under Rule 10 of Chewing Tobacco and Un-manufactured Tobacco, Packing Machines ( Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010 under Notificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a continuous period of 15 (fifteen) days in all cases. The respondents have informed the jurisdictional officers well in advance for unsealing of the machines as well as for supervision of the re-installation of the pouch making machine and it is evident from the impugned orders that the Range officer has visited the factory and supervised the entire process and not raised any objections. I find that the lower authority in Para.2 of page 3 of the first impugned Order-in-Original dated 15.09.2014 has categorically mentioned that, Jurisdictional Superintendent has certified the declaration given by the assessee in their letter dated 08.07.2014 that 1) during the above mentioned period against which said abatement was sought no manufacturing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f getting abatement. Moreover, the decision of continue or suspend production is purely a business decision taken by the respondents and the department cannot question the prudence or wisdom of the same, no matter however strong it appears to be flimsy or frivolous, in the absence of the Department bringing into fore the evidence to the contrary that there was no suspension of production of the notified goods for more than a continuous period of fifteen days in the instant cases. 8.1. As regards the allegation of furnishing vague and incomplete description of the machines in question, I lay my hand to the Form-I annexed with the letters of intimation for non-produciton of goods under Rule 10 ibid and find that the name of the manufactu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals lack conviction and are found to be based on assumption and presumption. 5. I find that the assessee submitted calculation of abatement of duty for which the machine was in sealed condition during the relevant months. It is seen from the Adjudication Order that the production was running from 01.08.2014 to 08.08.2014 (8 days) and no other production was made on and from 09.08.2014 to 31.08.2014 i.e. for 23 days for which the abatement was claimed. After considering the facts and law of the case, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities. 6. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. ( Operative portion of the order already pronounced in the open court ) - - TaxTMI - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
