Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S K. G. Pan Products Pvt. Ltd on 17 January, 2018
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL REGIONAL BENCH : ALLAHABAD COURT No. I APPEAL No. E/55396/2013-EX[DB] (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 61 & 62/CE/ALLD/2012 dated 02/11/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax & Customs (Appeals), Allahabad) Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad Appellant Vs. M/s K. G. Pan Products Pvt. Ltd. Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Pawan Kumar Singh (Supdt) AR for Appellant Shri Amit Awasthi (Advocate) for Respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. Ashok Jinadal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing : 17/01/2018 Date of Decision : 17/01/2018 FINAL ORDER NO. 70320/2018 Per: Ashok Jindal
The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order, wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the abatement of excess duty paid by the respondent.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent are manufacturing Pan Masala and Gutkha and paying duty under Pan Masala Packing Machine (capacity determination and collection of duty) Rules, 2008. The respondent was intended to close their factory w.e.f. 01.09.2011, therefore, they intimidated to the Department on 28 August, 2011 in terms of Rule 10 of the Rules, ibid, for closure of their factory at least three days in advance. The factory was closed on 31 August, 2011. Thereafter, the respondent paid duty for the month of September, 2011. As their factory was closed for more than 15 days, they filed claim of abatement of duty paid before the authorities below. Both the authorities below allowed the abatement claim to the respondent, against the said order the Revenue is in appeal on the ground that as in terms of Rule 10 of the said Rules the respondent was required to intimate three days in advance and although they have intimated on 28.08.2011 (three days advance) but on 31 August, 2011 was the festival of Idu l Fitr and the said day was not a working day. In that circumstances, the respondent did not intimate in these three days advance for closer of the factory, therefore they are not entitled for abatement of claim.
3. Heard the parties and on perusal of the record, we find that although order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has been reviewed but from the review order does not come out when the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) reviewed and who are not the Signatory of the review order. For proper appreciation of the reviewed order, the same reproduced hereunder:-
4. We further take a note of the fact that it is a fact on record that Departmental Officer themselves has sealed the factory on 31 August, 2011 the date which was holiday on account of Idu l Fitr. As the departmental officer worked and was necessary as acted on the said day, in that circumstances Department cannot claim that the said day was holiday, therefore, they have not given intimation three days in advance. Moreover, the purpose of giving intimation three days in advance is only for the convening purpose that within three days the Departmental Officer can seal the machine. The intent of the Statute to give three days advance notice for sealing the machines, it does not mean that the machine shall be sealed only after three days. The intend is that the machine should be sealed within three days. In that circumstances, the authority below have rightly allowed the abatement claim to the respondent.
5. We further observe that the Committee of Commissioner has reviewed the impugned order in casual manner and have not acted seriously while proposing to file the appeal before Tribunal. If they have applied their mind seriously, they would have not proposed to file the appeal before this Tribunal which resulted wastage of valuable time of this Tribunal. This type of activity should be avoided in future.
6. With these terms, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue.
(Dictated and pronounced in Court) (Anil G. Shakkarwar) Member (Technical) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) Ankit 1 6 APPEAL No. E/55396/2013-EX[DB]