2013 (3) TMI 344

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Determination and Collector of Duty) Rules, 2008'. The appellant paid Excise duty amounting to Rs. 6,25,00,000/- in terms of the above referred Rules for the month of July, 2009. On 9-7-2009, the appellant intimated the Department about his intention to close the factory for 15 days. Pursuant to the intimation, Excise Officials visited the factory of the appellant and deplugged the pouch making machines and sealed those machines in a hall by locking the entrance door of the hall and sealing the same. Excise Officials also put a lock on the entrance gate of the assessee's factory and sealed it. On the midnight of 29-10-2009, the excise officials visited the factory of the appellant and desealed the same. At the time of desealing, the seal of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pplication has been moved seeking waiver of the condition of pre-deposit. 4. Ld. Shri K. Kant, Advocate appearing for the appellant has taken us through the impugned order and contended that the demand has been confirmed on the ground that the machines, during the relevant period, were not sealed as per provision of Rule 10 of Pan Masala Packing Machine Rules, 2008. He further pleaded that though as per show cause notice, assessee cleared Gutka during the period of closure, that there is no reference to any invoices issued during said period. Ld. Counsel has also drawn our attention to the relevant Panchnama regarding sealing of the machines and desealing of the machines and submitted that perusal of Panchnama dated 16-7-2009 would ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 6. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the records. Although the show cause notice claims that the Preventive Wing of the Excise Officials came to know about the issue of invoices regarding sale of gutka by the assessee during the period of closure, but no such invoices have been placed on record nor there is any reference to those invoices in the impugned order. Further there is no evidence to show that during the period of closure Gutka was cleared as could to anyone. Thus only controversy which requires determination is whether or not gutka manufacturing machines were properly sealed in accordance with the Rules. On perusal of the Panchnama, we find that the excise officials unplugged the machines to make them un-....