Tribunal reclassifies PK-90 GMP FFS machine, overturns duty demand and penalties

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant company, determining that the PK-90 GMP FFS machine should be classified as a single track machine, not a double track machine as held by the Commissioner. As a result, the duty demand of Rs. 25,98,69,504/- along with penalties imposed on the company and its officials were set aside. The Tribunal found that the machine should be treated as a single track machine based on the applicable rules and notifications, leading to the allowance of the appeals with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the packing machine as single track or double track.
2. Determination of duty liability based on the classification of the machine.
3. Imposition of penalties on the appellant company and its officials.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of the Packing Machine:
The main dispute revolves around whether the PK-90 GMP FFS machine should be classified as a single track or double track machine. The appellant company argued that the machine is a duplex model of a single track machine, which produces two pouches simultaneously on a single line. They emphasized that the machine uses a single laminate roll and operates on a single track, albeit with higher speed. The technical literature from the supplier and expert opinions from IIT professors supported this classification. The Commissioner, however, classified it as a double track machine based on its production speed, which is almost twice that of a simplex model.

2. Determination of Duty Liability:
The duty liability was determined based on the classification of the machine. The Commissioner held that the machine should be treated as a double track machine and confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 25,98,69,504/- along with interest and penalties. The appellant contended that the duty should be based on the number of packing machines as specified under the Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 (PMPM Rules) and Notification No. 42/08-CE. They argued that the machine should be treated as a single track machine, and higher production speed should not affect the duty calculation. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that the PMPM Rules and the Notification do not distinguish between simplex and duplex machines and that the machine should be treated as a single track machine.

3. Imposition of Penalties:
The Commissioner imposed penalties on the appellant company and its officials, including the CMD, Senior Vice President, Vice President (Purchase), General Manager (Procurement), and General Manager (Legal & Excise), as well as the Director of the machine supplier, under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant argued that there was no justification for these penalties as the machine was correctly declared and inspected by the Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner. The Tribunal found no basis for the penalties, as the classification of the machine as a single track was upheld.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, holding that the PK-90 GMP FFS machine should be classified as a single track machine. Consequently, the duty demand and penalties imposed by the Commissioner were not sustainable. The appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

---