2017 (3) TMI 1147

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se Appeal No. 1172/2012 is directed against order-in-original No. COMMISSIONER/RPR/CEX/13/2012 dated 28.02.2012. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The relevant facts that arises for consideration, after filtering out unnecessary details are, appellant are engaged in the manufacture of gutka / pan masala; working under the provision of Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). In continuation of the said Rules, appellant deposited an amount of duty of Rs. 6.62 crore (approx.) towards the duty liability for the month of October, 2009. Subsequently, due to constraint, appellant filed a letter dated 07.10.2009 requesting the closure of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d 21/28.12.2010 which after due process of law was confirmed by the Commissioner, as an adjudicating authority by order-in-original dated 28.02.2012 which is being appealed in Appeal No. E/1172/2012. 4. On consideration of the submissions made by both sides and on perusal of records, we find that the adjudicating authority in Appeal No. E/1172/2012 has confirmed the demand raised on the appellant only on the ground that the Revenue authorities has not sealed each packing machine as stipulated in Rule 10 and Rule 6(5) of the said Rules. We reproduce the said para 4.4.1: "4.4.1. On going through the records such as Respondent's intimation dated 07.10.2009, panchanama dated 11.10.2009, I find that the Respondent had intimated about....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h 53 Nos. of packing machines for the impugned period of closure, the stipulations under Rule 10 of the Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules, 2008 have not been followed." 5. The adjudicating authority in this appeal has totally misdirected his findings inasmuch as the panchnama dated 11.10.2009 which was signed by the independent panchas, specifically stated that plugs of 53 pouch packing machines was removed and the entire factory was sealed in their presence. The said sealing of the entire factory is also confirmed by the panchnama dated 29.10.2009 wherein it is recorded that seals of factory were opened before the independent panchas which would mean that there was no production activity. In light of these facts the provisions need to b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Excise, as the case may be, with a copy to the Superintendent of Central Excise, [at least three working days] prior to the commencement of said period, who on receipt of such intimation shall direct for sealing of all the packing machines available in the factory for the said period under the physical supervision of Superintendent of Central Excise, in the manner that these cannot be operated during the said period: [Provided that during such period, no manufacturing activity, whatsoever, in respect of notified goods shall be undertaken and no removal of notified goods shall be effected by the manufacturer except that notified goods already produced before the commencement of said period may be removed within first two days of th....