2019 (3) TMI 663

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... this appeal. 2. Factual backdrop of the case is that appellant in appeal no. 1584/2010 was in the process of manufacture of "Gutka", a mixture of Pan Masala and Tobacco on job work basis but after introduction of the above rules imposing duty liability on the capacity of manufacturing and packing machines on 01/07/2008, appellant had duly closed production of Pan Masala and sealed its machines on 03/07/2008 in the presence of Superintendent of Central Excise. It was subsequently put to show cause vide notice dated 25/06/2009 vide which duty demand of Rs. 37,50,000/- was made from him for the entire month of July 2008, including the duty of 69,340/- which was paid by it for the said month. The matter was adjudicated, duty demand was conf....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....issioner Excise fixing duty liability for three days is erroneous and the same is required to be set aside. 4. In response to such submission s of the department and in support of its appeal, with reference to appeal memo, advocate for the respondent Mr. D.H. Nandkarni in appeal no. E/1581/2010 who is also appellant in Appeal no. E/1584/2010 submitted that appellant's contention before the adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals) that no manufacturing had taken place in the month of July and few packing (700) of manufacture d Pan Masala was done on 1^st July was not accepted by them that resulted in imposition of duty liability on his client M/s Prakash. He further contended that the first proviso to Rule 10 indicate s that both....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d not from 02.07.2008 as contended by appellant M/s. Prakash and the same in inconfirmity to the prospective application of the rule and needs no interference by the Tribunal. 6. In respect of clearance of goods during such stoppage of production and sealing of machinery, though no express provision or clarification is available as to if clearance of previously manufactured goods is to be included or excluded, in borrowing Rule 92 ZND dealing with procedure for claiming abatement on textiles vis-à-vis Board's circular no. B.04.06.2001 dated 30.04.2001 whereby clarification was given that the stock of stentered fabrics lying in the factory could be allowed to be removed during the period of closure, which is conterminous to Rule 10....