Tribunal orders factory closure period reassessment for abatement eligibility, stresses fairness and evidence admission.

The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal by remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority for accurate determination of the factory closure period to grant suo motto abatement. The Tribunal emphasized the need for fairness, directing that abatement should only be allowed if no machine was operational during any part of the month. Fresh evidence admission was permitted if necessary, ensuring adherence to legal procedures and providing a reasonable opportunity to the appellant.

---

---

Issues:
Claim of suo motto abatement for the period of machine closure.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing chewing tobacco, filed an appeal against Order-in-Original No. 32/15-16 dated 23.10.2015, covering the period of dispute from November 2011 to March 2012. The appellant claimed suo motto abatement for the period when all four machines were sealed by the Department, contending that the abatement should be allowed without the requirement of depositing duty first. However, the Department insisted on duty deposit followed by a refund claim. The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving Trimurti Fragrances Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that duty need only be paid for the days the factory was operational, not for the entire month. The Tribunal emphasized that the duty demand would not be sustainable due to the closure period, but interest on the net duty payable for the delayed payment would be applicable as per the law.

The Tribunal noted that the closure of all four machines in the factory indicated a production halt. However, the impugned order lacked clarity on the duration of the machine closure, i.e., when the factory was closed. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to determine the period of factory closure accurately. The Tribunal directed that the suo motto abatement should be allowed only if no machine was operational during any part of the month, emphasizing the importance of providing a reasonable opportunity to the appellant. The Tribunal also allowed the admission of fresh evidence if necessary, in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed by way of remand, with the Tribunal instructing the adjudicating authority to reassess the factory closure period for granting the suo motto abatement, ensuring fairness and adherence to legal procedures.

---