9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntent to operate any of those machines, Rule, 5 prescribes that uninstallation and sealing as well as removal from the factory premises was to be done by and under the supervision of Superintendent of the Central Excise but it s proviso permits nonremoval from the factory premises only when it is not feasible to remove and in such an event it has been to be un-installed and sealed by the Superintendent in a manner that it can t be operated. It is not understood as to why Appellant was fastened with the liability to pay duty on the basis of number of packing machines available with him, when its uninstallation and sealing were duly made and Rule 8 is not violated, since calculation of the number of operating packing machines for a month i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Facts of the case, in brief, is that Assessee/Appellant was a manufacturer of excisable goods viz. Chewing Tobacco without lime tube falling under Chapter 2403 99 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The duty Tariff of such product of notified goods is governed by Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination And Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010. As per provision of the Rule Appellant filed Form-1 alongwith his letter dated 25.10.2012 before the jurisdictional officer to discontinue manufacture of notified goods from 31.10.2012 by uninstalling and sealing of the machine under operation with a request to re-determine annual production capacity of it in terms of Rule 6(2) of the Chewing Tobacco and U ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s own case reported in 2023 (9) TMI 290 CESTAT Mumbai, on the same set of facts, in which it was held by this Tribunal that Order-in-Original being passed on 04.12.2012 against the declaration Form-1 filed on 23.10.2012 was certainly beyond the prescribed period of the statute permitting any modification by the Revenue Authority and, therefore, without the authority of law would also equally be applicable to the Appellant s present case, since both the Rules on Pan Masala and Tobacco Production Capacity and Determination of duty are pari materia to each other, for which order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is unsustainable both in law and facts. 4. In response to such submissions, leaned Authorised Representative for the Respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d clearly indicated that it was not feasible to remove the machines out of the factory and requested for sealing in such manner that it can t be operated. In the written submission filed before the Adjudicating Authority on 22.11.2012 Appellant had justified the grounds that it was not feasible to remove the machines for various reasons including non-availability of separate room to store and requirement of keeping costly imported machinery under controlled temperature and humidity levels etc., which seems to have not been taken note by the Adjudicating Authority. This being so, it is not understood as to why Appellant was fastened with the liability to pay duty on the basis of number of packing machines available with him, when its uninsta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
