2015 (12) TMI 1488

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... under the provisions of Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010, framed by the Central Government vide Notification No. 11/2010-C.E. (N.T.), dated 27.02.2010 issued in terms of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The said rule prescribes the procedures and guidelines, which a manufacturer is required to follow, for manufacture and payment of duty on the notified goods. 1.1 During the disputed period, the appellant had installed one Gutkha Machine in its factory premises. On 11.3.2013, the appellant intimated the Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise for opening/ unsealing of the machine w.e.f. 18.03.2013, for operating the same for 5 d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lant was allowed by considering the verification report submitted by the Jurisdictional Range Superintendent, certifying that the machine was closed continuously for the period of 15 days. Feeling aggrieved with the said adjudication order, the Revenue preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenues appeal was disposed of by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 3.6.2014 wherein, while allowing the appeal of Revenue, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that since the factory was not closed continuously for a period of 15 days during the month of March 2013, the claim of abatement allowed by the original authority is not proper. Denial of abatement to the appellant is the subject matter of present appeal ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cords. 5. The short issue involved in this appeal for consideration by this Tribunal is, whether the Phrase Continuous period of 15 days or more stipulated in Rule 10 of the said Rules would mean period of 15 days of a particular month or the same can be spilled over to the next calendar month, for computation of the period of 15 days. It is an admitted fact on records that the factory of the appellant was closed during the period from 23.03.2013 to 26.09.2013. Though the factory was continuously closed for a period of about 6 months, the Department is of the view that since in the month of March 2013, the factory was closed only for 9 days, the benefit of abatement as provided in Rule 10 shall not be applicable. In this context, I find ....