Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether abatement of duty under Rule 10 of the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010 was admissible when production in the factory did not come to a complete halt and one packing machine remained operative during the claimed period.
Analysis: Rule 10 permits abatement only where the factory does not produce the notified goods during a continuous period of fifteen days or more, subject to prior intimation and sealing of all packing machines so that they cannot be operated during the stoppage period. The condition is not satisfied by stopping only one machine or one line of production while other notified goods continue to be manufactured or cleared. The scheme under Section 3A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the relevant rules proceeds on capacity-based levy, and the abatement provision is confined to complete suspension of manufacturing activity for the notified goods during the relevant period.
Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to abatement because there was no complete stoppage of production or sealing of all machines for the claimed period.
Final Conclusion: The rejection of the abatement claim was sustained, and the appeal failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Abatement under the machine-based duty scheme is available only on complete cessation of manufacture for the prescribed continuous period with all packing machines sealed and incapable of operation.