Tribunal sets aside duty order, deems packing machine non-operational. Adjudicator overstepped jurisdiction.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and granting consequential relief. It held that the sealed/uninstalled packing machine should not be considered operational for duty purposes. The determination order was deemed approved as per the appellant's declaration due to exceeding the statutory time limit. Additionally, the adjudicating authority overstepped its jurisdiction by determining monthly duty liability, which should only involve determining annual production capacity.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Treatment of sealed/uninstalled packing machine as operating.
2. Timeliness of the determination order.
3. Jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority to determine monthly duty liability.

Summary:

Issue (i): Treatment of Sealed/Uninstalled Packing Machine:
The core issue was whether a packing machine that was sealed/uninstalled but not removed from the factory should be treated as an operating machine under the Chewing Tobacco & Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010. The appellant argued that Machine No.1, which was sealed/uninstalled by jurisdictional authorities, should not be considered for determining annual production capacity. The Tribunal noted that the mere existence of a packing machine in the factory does not automatically classify it as an operating machine. Rule 6(5) provides that if it is not feasible to remove the machine, it should be uninstalled and sealed in a manner that it cannot be operated. The Tribunal found that there was no evidence of the machine being operated illegally and concluded that the sealed/uninstalled machine should not be counted for duty liability.

Issue (ii): Timeliness of the Determination Order:
The appellant contended that the determination order was issued beyond the statutory time limit prescribed by the Rules, 2010. The Tribunal observed that the declaration in Form-1 was filed on 23.10.2012, and the order approving the declaration was issued on 4.12.2012 and communicated on 17.12.2012, which was beyond the statutory limit of three working days and the extended period of thirty days for modifications. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the approval was deemed to have been granted as per the appellant's declaration, and any modification beyond the thirty-day period was without legal authority.

Issue (iii): Jurisdiction to Determine Monthly Duty Liability:
The appellant argued that the adjudicating authority overstepped its jurisdiction by determining the monthly duty liability, which should only involve determining the annual capacity of production. The Tribunal agreed, stating that under Rule 6(2), the authority is only required to determine the annual production capacity and not the monthly duty liability. Hence, the determination of monthly duty liability was beyond the adjudicating authority's jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and granting consequential relief in accordance with the law. The decision emphasized that the sealed/uninstalled machine should not be considered operational for duty purposes, the determination order was issued beyond the permissible time frame, and the adjudicating authority exceeded its jurisdiction in determining monthly duty liability.

---