2016 (7) TMI 888 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of duty - Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 - period from 05.06.2012 to 29.06.2012 - Held that - the duty for the period 28.06.2012 to 30.06.2012 was payable by 05.07.2012 in terms of 3rd proviso to Rule9 of the said Rules. In the circumstances, there is no delayed payment of duty and consequently no liability to pay interest as the assessee in this case paid the duty of ₹ 3,60,000/- on 29.06.2012 for the period 28.06.2012 to 30.06.2012 and also no penalty is levied either as there was no delay in discharge of appropriate duty. - demand set aside - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against confirmation of penalty and interest for late payment of duty.
2. Appeal against reduction of penalty and demand of duty amount.

Analysis:
1. The first issue involves the appeal by the assessee against the confirmation of penalty and interest for late payment of duty. The Order-in-Appeal upheld the penalty of &8377; 3,60,000/- and interest for the period 05.06.2012 to 29.06.2012 due to the appellant operating the machine during 28.06.2012 to 30.06.2012, resulting in a delay in duty payment. The Revenue argued that the duty for the entire month should have been paid by 05.06.2012, and the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in reducing the penalty. However, the Tribunal referred to a similar case involving Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules, 2008, where it was held that if a machine is sealed and not operated during a specific period, it is deemed uninstalled, and duty is payable based on the reinstallation date. Applying this precedent, the Tribunal found no delayed payment of duty in the present case, as the duty was paid on 29.06.2012 for the period in question, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal and allowance of the assessee's appeal.

2. The second issue pertains to the Revenue's appeal against the reduction of penalty and demand of duty amount. The Revenue contended that the primary adjudicating authority correctly confirmed the demand of &8377; 32,40,000/- for the entire month, minus the amount paid on 29.06.2012. The Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the demand and reduced the penalty. However, the Tribunal, relying on the aforementioned case precedent, determined that the duty for the period 28.06.2012 to 30.06.2012 was payable by 05.07.2012 as per Rule 9 of the Rules. Since the duty was paid on 29.06.2012 without delay, no interest or penalty was warranted. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's appeal based on the established legal principles and interpretation of the relevant rules.