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

2018 (7) TMI 991

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r two days they have again applied for new registration certificate for the same work and with the same machines and in the same premises of factory. This clearly indicates their malafide intention to get the refund of duty which they were not able to claim otherwise in view of the provisions of Rule 10 of the said Rules 2010, wherein the continuous closure of 15 days or more was required for getting refund. As per Rule 17 a manufacture has to permanently ceases to work in respect of machine installed in the factory - Whereas in the present matter the appellant has intentionally surrendered his registration to take benefit of refund under Rule 17 as he intended to close his business for less than 15 days and in such situation abatement u .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gistration on 29.05.2015. On 01.06.2015, the appellant applied for new registration for the same premises and for the same manufacturing without making any amendment/ changes in the new registration. Although since the same chapters/commodities was also mentioned in their earlier registration therefore there was no requirement to get new registration but still the appellant applied for new registration and started production again w.e.f. 05.06.2015 from the same premises with the same machines. 2. During the month of May 2015 the appellant deposited a amount of ₹ 1, 64,22,000/- as duty through internet banking. Since they have surrendered their registration on 29.05.2015 therefore they filed a refund claim under Rule 17 of Chewing .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tral Excise, as the case may be, with a copy to the Superintendent of Central Excise, for the purpose, the duty payable by him for the month in which he so ceases to work permanently shall be calculated on the pro rata basis of the total number of days in the said month and total number of days before the date of receipt of said intimation with the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, and he duty paid for the month in accordance with the notification referred to in rule 7 shall be adjusted towards the duty so calculated and on such adjustment, if there is any excess payment, it shall be refunded to the manufacture by the 20th day of the following month and deficiency, if .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise intimating permanently ceases to work for surrender of registration. There is no bar on re-opening of the factory in Rule, 2008 which is subsequent event . 5. The ld. AR appearing for the department reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order and submitted that the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be rejected. 6. The issue to be decided in this case is whether a refund claim under Rule 17 of 2010 Rules is admissible to the appellant when they had although surrendered their registered certificate but after few days again obtained a new registration and started the same production from the same premises. And also whether the Appellant has fulfilled the conditions of Ru .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ected that the aforesaid notification will be effective from 01.03.2011 and therefore the appellants there-in re-opened their factory and pursuant to their application of de-sealing of the machines, the machines were de-sealed on 17.02.2011. Thereafter the appellant filed a refund claim of duty on pro rata basis of the duty paid during period of closure of their factory for 6 days. This shows that in that matter the appellant were forced to close down their factory by virtue of notification dated 04.02.2011 since there was no alternative packing available. Whereas in the present case the appellant without any compulsion requested for surrender of registration and for sealing of their machines and intimated permanently ceasing to work. On th .....

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