9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 804X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et the requirement of dispatches of the goods or sale of the goods to match the requirement of pending dispatch orders. It is settled Principal of the law that the word as provided in the statute or notification has to be read as it is rather than basically interpreting them in different way Hon ble Supreme Court in case of BANSAL WIRE INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS STATE OF UP. [ 2011 (4) TMI 77 - SUPREME COURT] has held that It is a settled principle of law that the words used in the section, rule or notification should not be rendered redundant and should be given effect to. It is also one of the cardinal principles of interpretation of any statue that some meaning must be given to the words used in the section. Expression Wire rods and wires which is mentioned in item no. (xv) would not and cannot cover the expression tools, alloy and special steels of entry no. (ix) nor it would refer to the expression Iron and Steel as each item used in entry nos. (ix) and (xv) are independent items not depending on each other at all. Rule 10 provides that assessee May clear the goods for first two days of the commencement of the closer period, it does not mean that all the manufactured/ stocked good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10.2014, the proportionate duty abetment in the form of the refund may be provided to them. The original Adjudicating Authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner of the Central Excise division vide order NO. 25/ABAT- REF/2015 dated 02.03.2015 has rejected the abetment claim of the appellant. The appellant has filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and same was also rejected by impugned order in appeal dated 16.02.2016. The appellant are before us against the impugned order in original as mentioned. 2. The learned Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that impugned order has been passed in ultra violation of principles of natural justice as the submissions made by the appellant before appellate Authority has not been considered at all. 2.1. It has further been contended that all the conditions as mentioned in the Rule of 2010 has been fulfilled by the appellant. It is further been mentioned that as provided under the Rule 10, the appellant is entitled for the proportionate abetment of the duty for the days for which the factory has not worked for producing of notified goods. There is no denying of the fact that the intimation of the closure of the factory was given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules 2010. The Rule 10 is reproduced here below :- " RULE 10. Abatement in case of non-production of goods. - In case a factory did not produce the notified goods during any continuous period of fifteen days or more, the duty calculated on a proportionate basis shall be abated in respect of such period provided the manufacturer of such goods files an intimation to this effect with the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, with a copy to the Superintendent of Central Excise, at least three working days prior to the commencement of said period, who on receipt of such intimation shall direct for sealing of all the packing machines available in the factory for the said period under the physical supervision of Superintendent of Central Excise, in the manner that the packing ma- chines so sealed cannot be operated during the said period : Provided that during such period, no manufacturing activity, whatsoever, in respect of notified goods shall be undertaken and no removal of notified goods shall be effected by the manufact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons. One of the conditions is; "that notified goods already produced before the commencement of said period may be removed within first two days of the said period. I find that, In the present case, the appellant claimed the abatement but failed to observe the said condition as there was stock of notified goods lying with them. I find that from the facts and evidences on record in the present case, it is proved that the appellant was having the stock of notified goods, which were produced earlier, even after the lapse of two days from the commencement of the closure period. The rule 10 above provides for the removal of the goods, which were produced before commencement of the closure period, within two days from the closure period. Thus the appellant submission that there is no contravention of the above provision does not stand. Hence, I hold that the impugned order to disallow the application of the appellant for abatement is legal." Thus, the only ground on which the Commissioner (Appeal) has rejected appeal was that the appellant was having the stock of notified goods which were produced earlier even after the lapse of the two days from the commencing of the closer period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
