2016 (8) TMI 487

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts Shri Dharam Singh, DR for the Respondent ORDER After hearing both the sides I find that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of chewing tobacco falling under Chapter 24 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 and during the relevant period was working under the provisions of "Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machine (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....laimed abatement in respect of first machine, which was being used for manufacture of pouches of Rs. 2 MRP and was lying sealed during the period 10.11.2011 to 30.11.2011, in  terms of Rule 10 of the said rules. The Revenue proposed to reject the abatement claim on the grounds that intimation for closure of the machine was given just two days prior to the actual closure whereas the Rules requ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h the sides duly represented by Shri O.P. Agarwal, Ld. Counsel for the appellant and Shri Dharam Singh, DR for the Revenue, I find that the dispute relates to abatement claim of the assessee for the period 10.11.2011 to 30.11.2011. The said claim was filed by the assessee in terms of Rule 10 of the Chewing Tobacco Rules in question. The said rule allows abatement in a case where the factory did no....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ner. If the Revenue is sensitive about the three days period, as provided under the said rule they could have sealed the machine after a period of 3 days from 08.11.2011. The fact that the machine was sealed within a period of two days of intimation itself shows that the Revenue is not strict about the fact of three days notice. Otherwise also I find that the issue is no more res integra and stand....