2016 (5) TMI 1429 - AT - Central Excise

Liability of interest - Held that - in Trimurti Fragrance Private Limited vs. CCE, Delhi -II 2016 (2) TMI 718 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , it was held that no duty demand or interest could be made on the appellant in similar situations. The Tribunal applied the provisions of the 3rd proviso to Rule 9 and reading it together with the other applicable provisions of the said Rules, came to conclusion that there is no delayed payment warranting levy of interest in such situation - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty liability under Chewing Tobacco and Un-manufactured Tobacco Packing Machines Rules, 2010.
2. Applicability of Rule 9 and 3rd proviso.
3. Imposition of interest and penalty.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appeals involved the appellant, engaged in the manufacture of Chewing Tobacco, under the scheme of Chewing Tobacco and Un-manufactured Tobacco Packing Machines Rules, 2010. The period in question ranged from May 2013 to December 2014, with duty calculations and payments made monthly. The appellant operated their pouch packing machine in the last week of each month, paying the duty before the month's end. However, proceedings were initiated to demand duty for the full month, along with interest and a penalty. The Original Authority dropped the duty demand but confirmed interest liability and imposed a penalty in one case.

Issue 2:
The appellant contended that as per the Rules, duty must be paid by the 5th of every month for the liability of that month, requiring advance discharge of duty. Due to machine sealing with intimation to the Department from the 1st to 5th of each month, no advance duty could be paid. The machines were operated in the last week, and duty was paid promptly before the month's end. The appellant argued that their case fell under the 3rd proviso to Rule 9, as Rule 7 was inapplicable for determining future machine operations. Citing previous Tribunal decisions, the appellant demonstrated that no duty demand or interest should be levied in such situations, as per the 3rd proviso to Rule 9 and related Rules. The Tribunal, following precedent, found merit in the appeals and allowed them.

Issue 3:
The Tribunal's decision was based on the application of the 3rd proviso to Rule 9 and the interpretation of relevant Rules in conjunction with past decisions. The Tribunal concluded that no delayed payment warranted interest levy in the circumstances presented. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the orders were in favor of the appellant, as per the dictated and pronounced decision in the open court.