Abatement of duty cannot be denied merely because a sealing report omits the time of sealing when closure was duly intimated.

Under Rule 10 of the Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008, abatement cannot be denied merely because the sealing report omits the time of sealing when advance intimation of closure was duly given and the machine was sealed for the relevant closure period. The absence of a time entry, by itself, is insufficient to presume that the packing machine operated on the sealing dates. On the facts stated, the denial of abatement for those dates was not supported, and the assessee was entitled to consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether, under Rule 10 of the Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008, the day on which the packing machine was sealed could be treated as a working day for denying abatement of duty merely because the sealing report did not mention the time of sealing.

Analysis: The conditions for abatement under Rule 10 required advance intimation of closure and sealing of the machine so that it could not be operated during the closure period. The appellant had given the prescribed advance intimation, the machine was sealed on the relevant dates, and there was no dispute that the period of closure satisfied the minimum requirement. The absence of any time entry in the sealing remark, by itself, was held insufficient to presume that the machine had operated on the sealing dates. The denial of abatement on that basis was therefore unsupported.

Conclusion: The denial of abatement for the sealing dates was set aside and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the assessee was granted the consequential relief flowing from acceptance of the abatement claim.

Ratio Decidendi: Where advance intimation of closure is duly given and the machine is sealed, the mere absence of the time of sealing in the officer's remark does not justify a presumption that the factory functioned on that day for denying abatement of duty.

---