9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 1041 - AT - Central ExciseManufacture of chewing tobacco - compounded levy scheme - Closure of factory - Period of closure - Held that - factory of the appellant was closed for the period 25.07.2012 to 21.08.2012 and duty was not paid by the appellant on 05.08.2012 as their factory was not functioning but when the factory started functioning on 22.08.2012 they have paid the duty on 24.08.2012. If at all the appellant are liable to pay they are liable to pay interest for the period of 05.08.2012 to 24.08.2012 which appellant has already paid. Therefore following the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Shree Flavours Pvt Ltd. (2014 (4) TMI 417 - CESTAT NEW DELHI) I hold that appellant is not required to pay duty. - Accordingly impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Maintainability of appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Payment of duty as per ACDO. 3. Interpretation of rules regarding payment of duty for closed manufacturing units. Issue 1: Maintainability of appeal before the Tribunal The appellant appealed against an order directing duty payment by the Ld. Commissioner. The Ld. AR contended that the appeal was not maintainable before the Tribunal as it was not appealable. She argued that appeals against orders demanding duty lie with the Commissioner (A), not the Tribunal. However, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant cited a Delhi High Court decision and a Tribunal case to support the appeal's maintainability based on the Ld. Commissioner's consideration of the case's merits. Issue 2: Payment of duty as per ACDO The appellant, a manufacturer of 'Sada Pan Masala' and 'Zarda,' was required to pay duty as per their annual capacity. The appellant failed to pay duty by the 5th day of the month due to the factory being closed. The Ld. Commissioner directed duty payment as per ACDO. The Tribunal found that the appellant's duty payment on the day the factory reopened sufficed, as they had also paid interest for the period of closure. Following precedent, the Tribunal held that the appellant was not obligated to pay duty for the closed period. Issue 3: Interpretation of rules regarding payment of duty for closed manufacturing units The Tribunal referred to a previous case where it was established that a manufacturing unit must deposit duty by the 5th of the month. If the unit closes before depositing duty for the entire month, they can seek abatement and refund. In this case, the appellant's factory was closed from 25.07.2012 to 21.08.2012, and duty was paid upon reopening. The Tribunal ruled that the appellant's payment of interest for the closure period was sufficient, and they were not required to pay duty for that time. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief.
|
