TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 717
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 A of the Central Excise Act. 2. The issue in this appeal is whether penalty of Rs. 3,89,660/- has been rightly imposed under Rule 18 read with Rule 16 of Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) (hereinafter called as '2010 Rules') read with Section 11 AC of Central Excise Act, for alleged contravention of Rule 10. 3. The brief facts are that the Compounded Levy Scheme was implemented w.e.f. 1.4.2010. For the period December, 2010, the appellant deposited the duty on 5th December and for Jan. 2011 deposited the duty on 5th Jan. Thereafter the appellant by letter dated 27.01.2011 requested the Department that they want to suspend the production and all the pouch packing m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of finished goods relating to December, 2010 and January, 2011, admittedly, cleared during May, 2011. As the proviso to the Rule 10 (Abatement) of the said Rules, provides that - "During such period, no manufacturing activity, whatsoever, in respect of notified goods shall be undertaken and no removal of notified goods shall be effected by the manufacturer except that notified goods already produced before the commencement of said period may be removed within first two days of the said period." 5. It was further proposed to impose penalty under Rule 18 read with Rule 16 of 2010 Rules read with Section 11 AC of the Act. Accordingly, the duty was calculated at the tariff rate along with cess, under the admitted fact that the appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cause notice on contest, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,89,660/- under Rule 18 read with Rules 16 of the 2010 Rules read with Section 11 AC of the Act. 8. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who was pleased to dismiss the appeal agreeing with the findings of the Asstt. Commissioner. 9. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 10. Ld.Counsel, Shri N.K. Tiwari for the appellant urges that it is an admitted fact that the appellant have not sought for any abatement in terms of Rule 10 of 2010 Rules. Admittedly, the appellant have paid the duty for the month of December, 2010 and Jan. 2011 under the Compounded Levy Scheme. Thus, the goods, which were admittedly manufactured during ....