2017 (8) TMI 1266

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the Appellant Mr. M.R. Sharma, DR for the Respondent ORDER Per V. Padmanbhan The appeal is against the Order-In-Original no.89/2013 dated 29.07.2013. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Pan Masala under Tariff Heading 2106 90 20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. Such Pan Masala is packed in pouches with the aid of pouch packing machines (FFS Machines). A portion of Pan M....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es confirmed the demand of duty to the extent of Rs. 39,74,838/- along with interest and penalty equal to duty, under Section 11AC. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeal has been filed. 2. With the above background we heard Shri Manish Pushkaran ld. Advocate for the appellant as well as M.R. Sharma DR. 3. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the demand comprised of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....only at 21:44 hours on 01.07.2008 and was printed in the Government Press subsequently. 5. DR supported the impugned order. 6. First, we consider the demand attributable to Pan Masala packed manually in tins. The appellant has cited the CBEC circular dated 04.08.2008 in which it has been clarified that the Compounded Levy Scheme notified under Section 3A will not be applicable to Pan Masala ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... From the record, we find that on 02.07.2008, the appellant has requested the Department to seal all their machines. Accordingly from 2.07.2008 onwards there is no duty liability on the appellant. However, it is not disputed that the machines were installed in the factory and not sealed on 01.07.2008 i.e. available for manufacture of Pan Masala on 01.07.2008. Consequently, in terms of the scheme ....