TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 relief in refund claim appeal due to timely machine sealing compliance.</h1> The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting relief to the appellant in a case concerning a refund claim rejection due to alleged failure to apply for ... Denial of abatement claim - whether the appellant is entitled for abatement of 3 days, i.e., 29-7-2010 to 31-7-2010 as per the Rule 10 of the Chewing Tobacco Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines - Held that:- Rule 10 of the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines Rules, 2012. As per the Rules, the appellant was required to intimate to the concerned Superintendent of Central Excise before sealing the machines, at least, three days prior to commencement of the period of sealing. Admittedly, in this case, the appellant has applied on 24-7-2010 to seal the machines from 26-7-2010. As the said request was not accepted, the appellant approached again on 28-7-2010 and on the receipt of the said request, the machines were sealed on 29-7-2010 itself. It is not disputed that machines were sealed during the period 29-7-2010 to 31-7-2010. - appellant has complied with the conditions of Rule 10 of the said Rules. Consequently, the appellant has entitled to rebate claim. In these terms, the impugned order is set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:Refund claim rejection based on failure to apply for sealing of machines in advance.Analysis:The appellant, a manufacturer of Chewing Tobacco, filed a refund claim after the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected it. The appellant had initially applied for sealing of machines on 23-7-2010, but as the sealing did not happen on that date, a second application was filed on 28-7-2010. The machines were eventually sealed on 29-7-2010 and remained sealed until 3-9-2010. The appellant did not pay duty for August 2010 but filed for abatement of duty for 3 days under Rule 10 of the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines Rules, 2012. The Adjudicating Authority allowed the refund claim, but the Revenue challenged it, leading to rejection by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) due to the alleged failure to apply for sealing in advance.The main issue revolved around whether the appellant was entitled to the abatement of 3 days from 29-7-2010 to 31-7-2010 as per Rule 10 of the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines Rules, 2012. Rule 10 required the appellant to inform the concerned Superintendent of Central Excise at least three days before sealing the machines. The appellant applied on 24-7-2010 to seal the machines from 26-7-2010, which was not accepted. Subsequently, on 28-7-2010, the machines were sealed on the same day the request was made. It was undisputed that the machines were sealed during the period 29-7-2010 to 31-7-2010. The Tribunal held that the appellant had fulfilled the conditions of Rule 10, making them eligible for the rebate claim, and consequently set aside the impugned order.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief to the appellant. The decision was based on the appellant's compliance with Rule 10, leading to the entitlement for the rebate claim and overturning the refund rejection by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals).
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
