2024-VIL-291-CESTAT-ALH-CE
  1. Home
  2. 2024-VIL-291-CESTAT-ALH-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE CESTAT Cases

Central Excise – Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944 – Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 – Rules 8 and 10 of Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 – Claim for remission of duty – Maintainability – Appellant is engaged in manufacture and clearance of Pan Masala and was discharging Central Excise duty on basis of capacity of production under Section 3A of the Act read with 2008 Rules – Due to fire accident broke out on top floor of unit, Appellant stopped production for 5 days – Appellant filed a remission claim requesting for remission of Central Excise Duty under Rule 21 of 2002 Rules on ground that manufacturing activities in factory remained suspended on account of natural causes resulting in loss of production for 5 days – Commissioner disallowed claim for remission of central excise duty – Whether claim made by Appellant for remission of duty as per Rule 21 of 2002 Rules is maintainable – HELD – Rule 21 of 2002 Rules provides for remission of duty in respect of finished goods lost or destroyed prior to clearance of same from factory of production – Wording of the rule is very clear and unambiguous – It is not the case of Appellant that any goods which were to be cleared on payment of duty subsequently have been destroyed in fire – Case of Appellant is that on account of fire accident that occurred in their factory, they were unable to produce goods for a period of 5 days and hence there was a loss of production capacity – Rule 21 of the Rules do not provide for such a situation – Rule 21 of the Rules is not applicable to present case – Appeal dismissed - Interpretation of provisions – Whether interpretation placed by Commissioner on second proviso to Rule 8 of 2008 Rules is tenable – HELD – It is settled principle of interpretation of statute that Court or Tribunal should interpret the word as used in law without any addition or deletion from same – Second Proviso to Rule 8 of the Rules needs to be considered in terms of Section 3A(3) of the Act and Rule 10 of 2008 Rules – Rule 10 of 2008 Rules provides that in case a factory did not produce notified goods during any continuous period of fifteen days or more, duty calculated on a proportionate basis shall be abated in respect of such period – Section 3A(3) of the Act itself provides for closure of unit for fifteen days or more for allowing abatement on proportionate basis – It is not the case of Appellant that their unit was not operational continuously for fifteen days or more – As per submission of Appellant, unit was non-operational for five days, hence, benefit of abatement could not have been allowed – Interpretation placed by Commissioner on second proviso to Rule 8 of 2008 Rules is tenable.
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Dr. G. Gokul Kishore

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

Income Tax Deductors/Collectors...
CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?