TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1109
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he manufacture of Pan Masala Containing Tobacco and Sada Pan Masala. They were paying duty on the said goods under Notification No. 3/2006-CE (NT) dated 01.03.2006. The duty structure of the said goods was modified vide Notification No. 29/2008-CE (NT) dated 01.07.2008. Consequently, the goods namely Pan Masala (Gutkha) manufactured with the aid of packing machine, as notified goods, the Central Excise duty was proposed to be collected in accordance with the provisions of Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944 and the duty with effect from 01.07.2008 was to be levied as per Notification No. 42/2008-CE dated 01.07.2008, and as per the procedure prescribed for the notified goods in Notification No. 30/2008-CE (NT) dated 01.07.2008. The appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to 31.07.2008. He pointed out that in terms of compounded levy scheme effective from 01.07.2008, they have discharged the entire duty liability of Rs. 4,66,35,484/- in respect of all the machines installed and working in their unit in the month of July 2008. He argued that since they have discharged the duty liability on the basis of machines, all clearances made during the month of July 2008 are deemed duty paid. He argued that even the clearance of opening stock as on 01.07.2008, though manufactured in the previous month, they cleared in the month of July 2008, stands covered for the duty paid on the machines installed and working in the month of July 2008. He also argued that duty liability has to be paid as per rates applicable at the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... He pointed out that at the time of clearance of the goods they were not aware of the liability of Section 3 to 3A. He argued that appellant had paid duty amounting to Rs. 91.93,549/- for one day i.e. for 01.07.2008 and this amount paid by them was much more than the amount of duty demanded by the Revenue on the clearance under compounded levy scheme as on 01.07.2008. Therefore, they have in fact paid the higher amount of duty for 01.07.2008. Ld. Counsel further argued that in terms of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI vs. Param Industries Limited - 2015 (321) ELT 192 (SC), for bringing a notification into force, two conditions are mandatory (1) it should be duly published in official gazette, and (2) it should be o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat even if it is manufactured and leviable to excise duty and they were not liable to pay Central Excise duty arise. 5. We have gone through the rival submissions. The issue before us is in respect of the goods manufactured but not cleared from the factory and lying as opening stock at the time of introduction of compounded levy scheme, were chargeable to tax on the basis of rates prevalent prior to introduction of compounded levy scheme; or the said clearances would be adjusted against the duty paid on the capacity determined under the compounded levy scheme. The argument of the appellant is that the rate of duty prevalent at the time of clearances would be applicable and he relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anufactured, the goods in question were unconditionally exempt from the duty. Under the Finance Bill, 1987-88, the said products were made dutiable at the rate of 15% ad valorem on or from 1st March, 1987. But the appellant had in their factory, a stock of the said products which were duly manufactured, according to Shri Dutta, packed and ready for sale prior to 28th February, 1987. In those circumstances, the goods in question, according to Shri Dutta, would not be subjected to duty at 15% ad valorem. Having considered the facts and the circumstances of the case, we are unable to accept this submission. Excise is a duty on manufacture or production. But the realisation of the duty may be postponed for administrative convenience to the date....