Case Law Details
Vishnu Fragrance Pvt.Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Central Excise and Customs (CESTAT Delhi)
Rule 10 of Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010, provides for abatement in case of non production of goods (in case of factory did not produce the notified goods during for continuous period of fifteen days or more). I find from the admitted facts on record that the appellant, being engaged in production during the period December, 2010 to 31.01.2011, admittedly have not sought for any abatement, and are not entitled to any abatement under Rule 10 of 2010 Rules. Thus, the view of the Department, first proviso of Rule 2010 is attracted is misconceived. Where a Rule is not attracted, the proviso thereunder does not attract. Under the Rules of Interpretation, a proviso is sub-servent to the Rule, and does not override the provisions of the Rule, of which it is a proviso.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT JUDGEMENT
The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of chewing tobacco and is registered with the Department. The appellant admittedly falls under the Compounded Levy Scheme vide notification no.11/2010-CE (NT) dated 27.02.2010 read with Section 3 A of the Central Excise Act.
2. The issue in this appeal is whether penalty of Rs.3,89,660/- has been rightly imposed under Rule 18 read with Rule 16 of Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) (hereinafter called as ‘2010 Rules’) read with Section 11 AC of Central Excise Act, for alleged contravention of Rule 10.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
