Tribunal grants refund claim, emphasizing no denial based on timing of intimation for sealing machine.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the denial of the refund claim to the appellant. It held that the lack of prior intimation for sealing the machine should not be a basis for rejecting abatement, especially when the sealing request was accepted, and production did not occur. The Tribunal emphasized that once the machine is sealed, abatement cannot be denied solely based on timing of intimation. Consequently, the appellant was granted the refund claim, and the impugned order was overturned with consequential relief provided.

---

---

Issues:
Request for adjournment by the appellant; denial of refund claim based on non-compliance with intimation requirement for sealing the machine; interpretation of Rule 10 regarding abatement in case of non-production of goods.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Pan Masala containing tobacco "Gutkha," requested to seal their machine as they did not intend to produce notified goods. The machine was sealed on 01/09/2010, and production activities were suspended for the whole of September 2010. A refund claim of &8377;12.50 lakhs was filed under Rule 10 of the Pan Masala Packing Machine "Capacity Determination and Calculation of Duty" Rules, 2008, due to non-production of goods for over 15 days. The claim was denied by lower authorities citing lack of three days prior intimation for sealing the machine, as required by the rule. The denial was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the present appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not appear for the hearing or request an adjournment. However, considering the narrow issue at hand, the appeal was deemed fit for disposal even in the absence of the appellant. It was undisputed that the machine was sealed on 01/09/2010, and no production occurred in September 2010, entitling the appellant to the refund as per Rule 10. The Tribunal emphasized that the purpose of the three days' notice requirement was for the facilitation of the sealing process, and the lack of prior intimation should not be a ground for rejecting abatement, especially when the request was accepted by the Range Authorities and the machine was sealed accordingly. The Tribunal held that once the machine is sealed, abatement cannot be denied solely based on the timing of the intimation.

Consequently, the Tribunal found no justifiable reasons to deny the abatement to the appellant. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief granted to the appellant.

---