TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal grants Gutkha manufacturer appeal for duty abatement during factory closure</h1> <h3>M/s Rajat Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE. & ST. Kanpur</h3> M/s Rajat Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE. & ST. Kanpur - 2015 (320) E.L.T. 146 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:1. Abatement of duty for factory closure under Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules, 2008.Detailed Analysis:The case involved the appeal of a Gutkha manufacturer seeking abatement of duty for the period of factory closure under the Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules, 2008. The appellant's factory was closed from 15.01.2013 to 31.01.2013, and they followed the procedure by submitting an application for abatement of duty to the Assistant Commissioner as per Rule 10 of the PMPM Rules. The Assistant Commissioner initially allowed the abatement, but the Commissioner (Appeals) later reversed this decision, citing that the intimation for closure was not given three working days prior to the closure. This led to the appellant filing an appeal along with a stay application and a miscellaneous application for early hearing.The appellant argued that they had submitted the closure application on 10.01.2013, which was received by both the Assistant Commissioner and Superintendent on the same day. The sealing of machines was done on 14.01.2013 as per the Assistant Commissioner's order, even though it was a holiday. The appellant contended that the purpose of the three working days intimation rule was fulfilled by the timely sealing of machines, as per the judgment in the case of Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers vs Deputy Commissioner. They also referred to a Tribunal case, Maharaja Processors vs CCE Delhi-III, to support their argument that technical requirements should not deny substantive benefits.On the other hand, the Department defended the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the importance of giving prior intimation of three working days as per Rule 10 of the PMPM Rules. They argued that the intimation given on 10.01.2013 should not be counted as one of the working days for closure commencement.The Tribunal analyzed Rule 10 of the PMPM Rules, which required three working days' intimation for factory closure abatement. The purpose of this intimation was to allow officers enough time to seal the machines effectively. In this case, the intimation was given on 10.01.2013, received by both offices the same day, and machines were sealed on 14.01.2013 per the Assistant Commissioner's order. The Tribunal concluded that the substantive benefit of abatement should not be denied due to a technicality, especially when the purpose of the intimation rule was fulfilled. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal, stay application, and miscellaneous application were allowed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
