2018 (7) TMI 1367

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....icable to chewing tobacco. As per facts of the case, the appellant filed an application before the Jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities, proposing to surrender the registration and permanently seizing of work in respect of all the machines installed in their factory premises. Pursuant to this intimation, all machines were sealed on 29/05/2015, marking the date of surrender of the registration. But the appellant entered a the revised lease agreement with the landlord of the same premises where they were operating and applied for fresh registration w.e.f. 01/06/2015 for manufacture of the same products. The machines which were sealed on 29/05/2015 were desealed on 05/06/2015 and on this date, the appellant commenced manufacture of the ch....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... were duly sealed by the departmental officers on 29/05/2015 and remained sealed till they were reopened for manufacture on 05/06/2015. Hence he argued that in terms of Rule 9 of the Chewing Tobacco, and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines, Rules 2010, the appellant is required to pay duty only on prorata basis for the total number of days in the month and the number of days remaining starting from the date of such commencement. In this connection he relied on the case of M/s Dhariwal Industries Ltd. V/s Commissioner 2015 330 ELT 639 (Tri.-Admd.) where a similar issue stands decided in favour of the assesees. 4. The Ld. DR justified the impugned order. He submitted that the closing of the manufacture activity w.e.f. 29/05/2015 and th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d taking fresh registration as an attempted as modus operandi to garner refund in a legitimate way. They have refused to accept at face value the intimation filed by the appellant for closure of the factory permanently and surrender of registration w.e.f. 29/05/2015. 8. The case law cited by the appellant deals with a similar situation. In that case, the Tribunal considered similar closure of the factory and recommencement of production subsequently by obtaining fresh registration. The case was decided in the context of Pan Masala. The Tribunal observed in the case in para 14 as follow:- "..... There is no provision in Rules 2008 that after declaring "permanently ceases to work", the manufacturer would not be entitled to reopen ....