2025 (1) TMI 1316

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../s. Dhariwal industries limited, the Appellant is manufacturing 'pan masala' containing tobacco known as 'gutkha' and paying excise duty under the compounded levy scheme as envisaged under Notification No. 30/2008-CE (NT) dated 01.07.2008. The Appellant had paid excise duty of Rs. 10,86,15,000/- for the month of February 2011 based on the number of machines intended for use by them for the said month. However, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the factory was closed for immediate implementation with regard to restriction of the manufacture, clearance and sale of such manufactured goods and an intimation was given to the Department by the appellant vide letter dated 07.02.2011 and the machines were sealed by t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... intimation filed by the claimant on 07.02.2011 can be accepted as a prior intimation and refund can be allowed for 08 days starting from 09.02.2011 to 16.2.2011 as per the provisions of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. The packing machines were sealed on 08.02.2011 at 12.00 Noon, thereby it can be construed that the packing machines were in inoperative condition from 00.01 hrs to 12.00 Noon on 08.02.2011 and hence the goods were deemed to have been produced on 08.02.2011 even though the packing machines were in sealed condition from 12.00 hrs to 24.00 hrs and in inoperative condition. Similarly on 17.02.2011, the machines were de-sealed at 14.00 hrs and from 14.01hrs to 24.00 hrs the machines were in working condition and hence it ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Court directed that the ban will be effective from 1.3.2011. As per the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appellant reopened the factory on 17.2.2011. The jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise, de-sealed the machines. In such a peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered view, the refund claim filed by the appellant would come within the purview of Rule 16 of Rules 2008. 14. The learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue, during the course of hearing, submitted that the appellant reopened the factory on 17.2.2011 and therefore, it cannot be treated as "permanently ceases to work." They have also not surrendered registration. It is difficult to accept the contention of the learned Authorized Rep....