2021 (6) TMI 618

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty) Rules, 2010, read with Section 3A of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was engaged in the manufacture of chewing tobacco and was registered with the Department and paying duty under the compounded levy scheme under Section 3A of the Act read with Chewing & Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machine (Capacity Determination & Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as CT Rules, 2010). 3. As the appellant was entitled to install a new automatic packing machine (form-fill-seal) w.e.f. 01.04.2010, as required under the CT Rules, 2010, filed the declaration in Form-1 in the last week of March, 2010. The Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 26.04.2010 determined the duty payable as Rs. 9,02,500/- ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....minate roll used for making of the pouches alongwith single Zipper band (Photo enclosed). 4. The pouches cut through a cutting knife, therefore, two pouches are made at a time (photo enclosed). 5. There are two Hoppers provided in the machine to fill chewing tobacco in both pouches through two cut fillers at a time. 6. Two pouches (final product) come out from the pouch discharge unit at a time (photo enclosed)." 5. It appeared to Revenue, since the machine installed by the appellant in May, 2010, as to filling system two heaters and two pouches are manufactured at a time, the Commissioner has viewed that the machine should be treated as "double track machine‟ and have directed to take necessary action. I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s incorrect as the new machine installed from 01.04.2010 also appears to be "double track machine‟ based upon the aforementioned facts, and accordingly based on the presumption, differential duty was demanded for Rs. 9,02,500/- requiring the appellant to show cause as to why the machine which was installed and removed during the month of April, 2010, be not treated as double track machine under the CT Rules, 2010. Further, penalty was also proposed under Rule 18. 8. The show cause notice was adjudicated on contest and the proposed demand was confirmed alongwith interest and further penalty of equal amount under Rule 18, by the Additional Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 05.12.2012. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ly another machine. Subsequently, we had supplied another machine vide Invoice No. VRML1011003 dated 30.04.2010 having two hoppers, two heaters and two cutters known as single track machine and no additional amount was charged by us. Transporter copy and Debit Note cum Despatch Advise of both invoices mentioned above are attached herewith for your needful. Yours sincerely, For Pakona engineers (I) PVT. LTD., Sd/- (AUTHORISED SIGNATORY)" 10. For the reasons as stated above, there being no difference in the price of machine, does not give the Department liberty to presume that both the machines are identical having same capacity. He further draws my attention to the show cause notice wherein admittedly f....