2018 (3) TMI 685 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal grants abatement claim for Pan Masala manufacturer, setting aside rejection.

M/s Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise and S.T., Ghaziabad

The Tribunal allowed the appellant's claim of abatement, setting aside the rejection by lower authorities. The appellant, a manufacturer of Pan Masala ... Abatement claim - closure of factory for more than a period of 15 days - Pan Masala - Held that: - identical issue decided in the case of M/s Godfrey Philips India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax, Ghaziabad [2015 (8) TMI 35 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that The denial of abatement is only on the ground that appellant is required to pay duty for whole of the month and thereafter to claim the abatement but that is not correct view in the light of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Shree Flavours Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (4) TMI 417 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] - appellant allowed for the abatement - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Claim of abetment rejection by authorities below.Analysis:The appellant, a manufacturer of Pan Masala containing Tobacco, filed an abatement claim against duty paid for the month of April, 2012, as their factory remained closed for over 15 days. The abatement claim was rejected, leading to the appeal. The Tribunal considered previous cases where the issue of duty payment and abatement had been addressed. It was noted that the appellant is not required to pay duty for the entire month and then claim abatement, but can pay duty for the days machines were operating. The Tribunal held that denial of abatement solely based on the requirement to pay duty for the whole month was incorrect. Relying on precedent, the Tribunal allowed the abatement claim, setting aside the impugned order.The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant is entitled to the claim of abetment based on the decision in their own case. Citing the previous ruling in a similar matter, the Tribunal allowed the abetment claim filed by the appellant, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed, granting them the abatement claim.In conclusion, the Tribunal, in line with previous decisions and legal principles, allowed the appellant's claim of abetment, rejecting the rejection by the lower authorities. The judgment highlights the correct approach to duty payment and abatement, ensuring that the appellant is entitled to the relief sought based on the specific circumstances of the case.