Service tax abatement allowed for machine closure periods under Rule 10 without prior duty payment requirement

The CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled in favor of the appellant regarding service tax liability during machine closure periods. The Revenue contended that the appellant must first pay excise duty for the entire period before claiming abatement for the closure period. The Tribunal held that under Rule 10 of the Pan Masala Packaging Machine Rules, 2008, appellants can claim abatement without prior duty payment for machine closure periods. Citing precedent from P.M. Products case, the Tribunal determined full duty cannot be demanded during non-operational periods. The demand was deemed unsustainable, impugned orders were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Liability to pay service tax for the entire period before claiming abatement.
2. Whether abatement can be claimed without first paying the duty.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Liability to Pay Service Tax for the Entire Period Before Claiming Abatement:
The core issue in this case is whether the appellant must pay the service tax for the entire period before claiming abatement for the period when the machine was sealed. The Revenue contends that the appellant should first pay the duty for the entire period and then claim abatement for the period when the machine was sealed. However, the appellant argues that they can claim abatement without first paying the duty, as supported by various judicial precedents.

2. Whether Abatement Can Be Claimed Without First Paying the Duty:
The appellant's counsel, Shri N. K. Tiwari, cited multiple judgments to support the argument that it is not necessary to first pay the duty and then claim abatement. The relevant judgments include:
- PM PRODUCTS (2023)
- KAY FRAGRANCE PVT LTD. (2012)
- SHREE FLAVORS PVT LTD. (2014, 2015)
- PANPARAG INDIA LTD. (2016)
- SHAKTI FRAGRANCE PVT LTD. (2015)
- VARUN SILK MILLS PVT LTD. (2007)
- GODFREY PHILIPS INDIA LTD. (2015)
- TRIMURTI FRAGRANCE (2015)
- THAKKAR TOBACCO (2015, 2016)
- STEEL INDUSTRIES OF HINDUSTAN INDUSTRIAL AREA (2013)
- UNICORN PACKERS PVT LTD. (2015)

The Tribunal reviewed the records and found that the appellant had followed the procedure for sealing and desealing the machines under departmental supervision and claimed abatement only for the period when the machine was under closure. The Tribunal noted that this issue had been considered multiple times and consistently held that there is no need to first pay the duty and then claim abatement.

Judgment Analysis:
- PM PRODUCTS Case: The Tribunal confirmed that the appellant followed Rule 10 of the Pan Masala Packaging Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008, which allows for abatement without first paying the duty.
- Thakkar Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. Case: The Gujarat High Court ruled that abatement means reduction of duty and not a refund, and there is no need to first pay the duty and then claim abatement.
- Shakti Fragrances Pvt. Ltd. Case: The Delhi High Court held that failure to pay duty by the fifth day of the month does not deprive the assessee of the right to pro-rata abatement of duty.
- Trimurti Fragrances Pvt. Ltd. Case: The Allahabad High Court confirmed that the appellant is entitled to abatement without first depositing the duty, provided the statutory requirements are met.
- Kay Fragrance P. Ltd. Case: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that abatement can be granted even if the closure period spans two calendar months, and there is no need to pay duty for the entire month before claiming abatement.
- Shree Flavors Pvt. Ltd. Case: The Tribunal and subsequently the Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld that the appellant can claim abatement without first paying the duty, provided the procedural requirements are met.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that based on multiple judgments, the appellant is entitled to abatement without first paying the duty for the period when the machine was under closure. The demand for duty by the Revenue was deemed unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

Pronouncement:
The judgment was pronounced in the open court on 08.08.2024.

---