TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 566
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aim dated 10.05.2016 by unit 7 for Rs. 48,09,935/- (d) Refund claim dated 13.05.2016 by unit 9 for Rs.20,08,645/-. After considering the matter, the Assistant Commissioner rejected all the four refund claims vide Order No.55-58/refund/2016 all dated 08.09.2016. Against the said rejection orders, M/s. Vishnu Pouch Packaging Pvt. Ltd. filed appeal with the Commissioner (Appeals) office who vide impugned order dated 21.02.2017 set aside the rejection orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and allowed the appeals. It is against these impugned orders the Department had filed four appeals bearing Appeal No. E/11102/2017 involving refund of Rs.5,66,00,903/-, Appeal No. E/11103/2017 involving refund of Rs.20,08,645/-, Appeal No. E/11104/2017 involving refund of Rs.59,16,516/- and Appeal No. E/11105/2017 involving refund of Rs. 48,09,935/- before this Tribunal. Subsequently, the department withdrew Appeal Nos. E/11103 & 11105/2017 on the ground of low monetary value, which was allowed by this Bench vide Order No. A/11694-11695/2019 dated 05.09.2019. The appeal No. E/11104/2017 was allowed to be withdrawn vide order No. A/13122/2024 dated 20.12.2024 and now only, the appeal No. E/1110....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....les, 2008, it is clear that where factory producing a notified goods did not produce the notified goods during any continuous period of 15(Fifteen) days or more, the duty calculated on proportionate basis shall be abated in respect of such period if the manufacturer of such goods fulfils such conditions as may be prescribed. This means that duty abatement is not available if non-production of notified goods is for a period less than 15 days. * The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in applying Rule 16 of the PMPM Rules, 2008 which is applicable only in case of permanent closure of the unit. There is no provision in the said rules for refund of duty arising due to sealing of PPMs by the DGCEI or any departmental Officers as part of investigation. 3. During the arguments, learned AR mentioned that there was no production of Pan-Masala in the units of the respondent from 7:30 PM of 18.05.2015 to 00:15 AM of 24.05.2015. As non-production of notified goods was for a continuous period of less than 15 days, no abatement was admissible to them. The production was halted by the respondent on their own on visit by the DGCEI Officers in their units. He further argued that the machines put ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... PPMs and paid the Central Excise duty of Rs.28,16,82,000/- on 05.05.2015. Subsequently, they added two more machines w.e.f.13.05.2015 by declaring new RSP of Rs.2.00/- per pouch and accordingly paid duty of Rs.65,92,387/- on proportionate basis. It is on record that the DGCEI Officers visited the units of the respondent on 18.05.2015 to verify speed of pouch packing machines which was one of the criteria for determining production capacity of the factory which in turn had bearing on total duty payable by the respondent. 5.1 The department alleges that when officers entered the factory premises, the respondent had switched off the power. Therefore, they seized all the pouch packaging machines and subsequently, sealed them under panchnama dated 18.05.2015. De-sealing of all 27 machines was done under Panchnama dated 24.05.2015. Therefore, it is clear that all 27 PPMs actually did not produce any notified goods during the period from 18.05.2015 to 23.05.2015. It is also not in dispute that the respondent paid excise duty for the period of six days from 18.05.2015 to 23.05.2015. We also have no doubt that non- production of notified goods in unit-1 of the respondent was not on their ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the use of plastic pouches with immediate effect. There is no dispute that the Superintendent of Central Excise was acted upon on the basis of intimation by letter dated 8-2-2011 and sealed the machine on 10-2-2011. Thus, on 10-2-2011, the appellant closed down their factory. The intimation given by the appellant to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise by letter dated 8-12-2011 would show that the appellant permanently ceases to work in respect of all the machines installed in the factory and it would be followed for surrender of registration. Incidentally, by order dated 17-2-2011, the Hon'ble Supreme 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 Authorised Representative for the Revenue, during the course of hearing, submitted that the appellant reopened the factory on 17-2- 2011 and therefore,....