Case Law Details
Shree FlavourLlp Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Chandigarh)
Conclusion: There was no levy of duty on compounded basis on Tin Packing machine and on pouches which had not been packed with the aid of packing machine, but were packed manually with the help of hand operated fillers or similar manually operated device and sealed with heat sealers/band sealers/candles/hot iron and the like.
Held: The dispute was related to the levy of Central Excise Duty on a Compounded basis, under section 3A of Central Excise Act 1944, on certain “Packing Machines” used for the manufacture of chewing tobacco. The appellants who were using these machines in their Unit which according to them did not qualify as “Packing Machines” in terms of the notification No. 10/2010-CE (N.T.) dated 27.02.2010. The Deputy Commissioner informed that all machines including the Tin machines and the manual machines were covered under the Compound Levy Scheme (CLS). In response to the appellant’s response, the Deputy Commissioner informed that there was no levy of duty on a compounded basis on the Tin Packing machine and on pouches which had not been packed with the aid of the packing machine. It was held that the Deputy Commissioner informed that the department had re-examined the issue and that there was no levy of duty on compounded basis on Tin Packing machine and on pouches which had not been packed with the aid of packing machine, but were packed manually with the help of hand operated fillers or similar manually operated device and sealed with heat sealers/band sealers/candles/hot iron and the like. No specific action was taken by Deputy Commissioners against the impugned machines by way of demanding duty under Compound Levy Scheme (CLS) or otherwise. It appeared that the appellants had a bonafide belief that they were not covered under compounded levy scheme in respect of the disputed machines. The Deputy Commissioners also was aware of the facts. Revenue had raised the issue of admission of liability before Settlement Commission. There was no any case of revenue on merits it did not matter if appellants had admitted any liability before the Settlement Commission or not.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHANDIGARH ORDER
These appeals are filed by
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
