2012 (12) TMI 380 - AT - Central Excise

CESTAT Upholds Abatement Claim in Pan Masala Packing Dispute

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE Versus SAI PAN PRODUCTS

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi upheld the abatement claim in a dispute concerning the counting of days for non-production of notified goods ... Abatement of duty in terms of the proviso 1 of Rule 10 of the Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity of Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 - Rule provides abatement in case a factory did not produce the notified goods during continuous period of 15 days or more - which point of time the counting of day start – Held that:- A day is a unit of time equivalent to approximately 24 hours - closure was for a period of 15 days - Revenue in support of their plea that the day should start from 00.00 hours at night has not placed any support or any material so as to justify their stand. Admittedly the closure was for continuous period of 15 days (by taking a day of 24 hours) and no infirmity can be found in the views adopted by Commissioner (Appeals). Revenue’s appeals are accordingly rejected Issues:Abatement of duty in terms of Rule 10 of Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules, 2008 - Dispute regarding the counting of days for non-production of notified goods.Analysis:The main issue in the present appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi revolves around the abatement of duty as per the proviso 1 of Rule 10 of the Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity of Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008. The crux of the matter is determining the period of closure for which the abatement is claimed. The dispute arises from the differing interpretations of when the counting of days for non-production of notified goods should commence.The Revenue contends that the day should start from midnight, i.e., 00.00 hours, and argues that the period from 00.00 hours to the morning cannot be considered as a day of non-production if the sealing of machines was desired by the assessee from the morning of a specific date. Thus, they assert that excluding this period from the total non-working days would result in only 14 days of closure, rendering no abatement applicable. The Revenue emphasizes that the abatement was wrongly calculated by the adjudicating authority.On the other hand, the Commissioner (Appeals) opines that a day should be considered as a unit of time equivalent to approximately 24 hours, irrespective of when it starts or ends. The Commissioner rejects the Revenue's argument regarding the starting point of the day and concludes that the closure was indeed for a continuous period of 15 days, thereby upholding the abatement claim. The Commissioner highlights that the time of sealing and desealing by the proper officers was crucial in determining the duration of closure.Upon careful consideration of the arguments presented by both parties, the Appellate Tribunal concurs with the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejects the Revenue's appeals. The Tribunal finds no merit in the Revenue's stance that the day should commence from midnight, as no supporting evidence or material was provided to substantiate this claim. By adopting the view that a day consists of 24 hours, the Tribunal affirms that the closure period amounted to 15 days, aligning with the Commissioner's decision. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals are dismissed, and the abatement claim is upheld.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal's decision underscores the importance of interpreting the duration of closure for abatement purposes based on a standard unit of time, i.e., a day comprising 24 hours, rather than specific starting points like midnight. The judgment emphasizes the need for clarity and consistency in calculating such periods to ensure fair and accurate adjudication in matters concerning duty abatement.