2017 (9) TMI 1370

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....acco classifiable under Chapter 24 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant filed refund claims claiming abatement for non-production of notified goods for a continuous period of 15 days in terms of Rule 10 of Rules made under Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010 (in short Rules, 2010), framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Adjudicating Authority rejected both the refund claims. By the impugned orders, the Commissioner (Appeals) modified the adjudication orders. Hence, the appellant filed these appeals. 3. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 4. In Appeal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....acity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010, has been complied, thus I hold that the appellant is eligible for abatement for the period from 20.10.2015 to 31.10.2015 for 12 days proportionately and may be given accordingly. 6.9 In view of the above facts and discussion, I find that the observation of the lower authority is partially justified and required to be modified." 5. In Appeal No.E/76958/2016 by Order-in-Appeal No.68/SH/CE(A)/GHY/2016 dated 24.08.2016, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed as under : "6.8 I find that in the instant case the machine was not uninstalled and sealed in such a manner that it cannot be operated as evident from the sealing order dated 25.11.2015. Thus, I opine that it was compulsory on the par....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stified and required to be modified." 6. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claim partly on the basis of provisions of sub-rule (5) of Rule 6 of the Rules, 2010 as reproduced below : "Rule 6. Declaration to be filed by the manufacturer - (1) ************* (2)************** (3)************** (4)************** (5) The machines which the manufacturer does not intend to operate shall be uninstalled and sealed by the Superintendent of Central Excise and removed from the factory premises under his physical supervision : (Provided that in case it is not feasible to remove such packing machine out of the factory premises, it shall be uninstalled and sealed by the Superintendent of Central Excise in such a manner that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s which is not available at the dead hours of night, the machine is sealed in such a manner that it cannot be operated. The entire un-installation and sealing has been in presence of Shri Pramod Sharma, authorized signatory of Dharampal & Satyapal Ltd. (Unit 2) after observing all necessary formalities." 9. Further, the Superintendent of Central Excise by report dated 25.11.2015, had recorded as under : "As per letter of Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax Division, Agarwal vide letter C.No.V(30)02/CL/CE/ACA/2015/4842 dt. 24.11.15 the Single Track FFS Machine No.120323479 has been uninstalled and sealed at the factory premises of M/s Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. (Unit 2), A.D.Nagar, Agartala on 25.11.2015 at 23.50 hrs. in term....