2018 (7) TMI 1190 - AT - Central Excise

Appellant granted refund under Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules, 2008 for continuous closure period

The Tribunal allowed the appellant's refund claim under the Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules, 2008, for a closure period, holding that continuous closure ... Refund/abatement of duty - closure of factory - Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination & Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 - denial of abatement on the ground that the factory did not remain close for a continuous period of 15 days as required - Held that:- Neither the refund claim for this period is time barred nor the same is hit by res-judicata - The rejection of the refund claim of ₹ 3,63,000/- for the period 1st December, 2011 to 09th December, 2011 is bad and fit to be set aside. There is an apparent error on the face of the record in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 26/09/2012, in rejecting the refund claim for the period 1st December, 2011 to 09th December, 2011. Accordingly this appeal is allowed allowing the refund - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Refund/abatement of duty under Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination & Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008.Analysis:1. The appellant, a Gutkha manufacturer, applied for a refund claim under the PMPM Rules, 2008 due to factory closure for certain periods. The Adjudicating authority rejected the claim as the factory did not close for a continuous 15 days. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the claim for one period but rejected it for another. The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal.2. The Tribunal referred to a previous case and held that the closure period need not be within a single calendar month. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, stating that continuous closure days, even across different months, constitute one continuous period for abatement determination.3. Following the Tribunal's ruling, the appellant reapplied for a refund, which was partially allowed by the Assistant Commissioner. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal, leading to the appellant approaching the Tribunal again.4. The Tribunal found the rejection of the refund claim for one period unjustified and set it aside. It held that the claim was not time-barred or res judicata. The Commissioner's rejection was deemed erroneous, and the appeal was allowed, granting the refund for the specified period under Rule 10 of PMPM Rules, 2008.5. The Tribunal directed the Adjudicating Authority to process the refund with interest within 30 days of the order receipt. The decision was made based on legal interpretations and previous precedents, ensuring the appellant's entitlement to the refund under the applicable rules.