M/S. Raja Packaging vs C.C.E. & S.T. Raipur

[Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 345/RPR-I/2013 dated 25.10.2013 by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Raipur].

For approval and signature:

Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

M/s. Raja Packaging .Appellants

Vs.

C.C.E. & S.T. Raipur .Respondent

Appearance:

Shri A.K. Mishra, Advocate for the Appellants

Shri R.K. Mishra, DR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing: 15.04.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 51423/2015-EX(SM)

Per Ashok Jindal:

The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein abetment for the period 27.07.2012 to 31.07.2012 was denied by the Ld. Commissioner (A) by way of the impugned order.

2. The facts of the case re that on 25.07.2012 the Government of Chhattisgarh declared manufacture, storage, sale and distrubution of gutkha is prohibited within the territory of the state with immediate effect. Thereafter on 26.07.2012 the appellant stopped production of gutkha and requested the jurisdiction of main superintendent for sealing of packing machines. The appellant also surrendered their registration certificate vide letter dated 31.07.2012. Thereafter, appellant filed a refund claim for the period of closure of their factory during the period 27.07.2012 to 31.07.2012. The refund claim was sanctioned but on appeal filed by the Revenue before the Ld. Commissioner (A) the impugned order was passed. Aggrieved from the said order appellant is before me.

The Ld. Consultant for the appellant submits that as per Rule 16 of the Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules 2008 the appellant has permanently closed their factory w.e.f. 26.07.2012 and intimated the same to the department for sealing the machines. As there was a ban on manufacturing of tobacco products in the state of Chhattisgarh appellant has never started nor request for de-sealing of the machine in future. Moreover, they have surrendered the certificate. Therefore they are entitled to take abetment of excess duty paid by them for the period 27.07.2012 to 31.07.2012. Therefore, impugned order is required to be set aside.

3. On the other hand, the Ld. AR oppose the contention of the Ld. Counsel and submits that as per Rule 16 of the said Rules the appellant is required to intimate that their factory is permanently closed and a request of surrender is also to be made but same has been done on 31.07.2012. In these circumstances, appellant is not entitled to claim abetment for the said period.

4. Heard the parties. Considered the submission.

5. I find that in this case the Government of Chhattisgarh has banned the manufacture of tobacco products w.e.f. 26.07.2012. This ban on manufacture of tobacco was in public domain and appellant has also stopped manufacturing w.e.f. 26.07.2012 itself. Appellant has also intimated to the department for sealing of their machines w.e.f. 26.07.2012 and surrendered their registration certificate on 31.07.2012. It is a fact on record after that appellant has not started any manufacturing or requested for de-sealing of machines. In these circumstances, appellant has complied with condition of Rule 16 of the said rules and entitled for abetment of refund of duty paid for the period 27.07.2012  31.07.2012.

6. With these observation impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)

(Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial)

Bhanu

2

E/51213/2014-EX(SM)