2018 (9) TMI 1486 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - manufacture of Pan Masala and Jarda Scented Tobacco - Notification issued under Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 - Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010 - Held that - If manufacturers intimates its intention not to operate the packing machine and the same is sealed by authorized officers, such machines are deemed to have been uninstalled in terms of Sub-rule 6 of said Rules and under such circumstances 3rd proviso to Rule 9 become operational and therefore, the date of payment of duty gets shifted to 5th of the following month - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of Rule 9 of Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 and Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010.
- Applicability of the 3rd proviso to Rule 9 in determining the date for payment of duty.
- Liability to pay interest on duty amount in specific time periods.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of Rule 9 of the Rules
The appeals arose from two different Order-In-Appeals concerning the same manufacturer, both related to the payment of duty for the operation period of Pan Masala and Jarda Scented Tobacco manufacturing. The contention was whether the duty payment should be for the full month or proportionate to the operational period. The Tribunal referred to previous cases and held that the duty payment date is determined by Rule 9 of the respective Rules, emphasizing the importance of correct interpretation of the rules governing duty payment.

Issue 2: Applicability of the 3rd proviso to Rule 9
The Tribunal considered the argument presented by the appellant that the 3rd proviso to Rule 9 becomes operational when the manufacturer intimates non-operation of the packing machine and it is sealed by authorized officers. This proviso shifts the duty payment date to the 5th of the following month. The Tribunal agreed with this interpretation, highlighting the significance of procedural compliance for invoking the provisions of the rule accurately.

Issue 3: Liability to pay interest on duty amount
The Commissioner (Appeals) had held that interest was payable on the duty amount for specific time periods. However, the appellant contended that the Commissioner did not consider the 3rd Proviso to Rule 9 in arriving at the decision. The Tribunal, after reviewing the submissions, found merit in the appellant's arguments and set aside the Orders-In-Appeal, allowing both appeals. The decision emphasized the importance of considering all relevant provisions and precedents while determining the liability for interest on the duty amount.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment provided clarity on the interpretation of Rule 9, the applicability of the 3rd proviso, and the liability for interest payment, ensuring adherence to legal provisions and procedural requirements in matters concerning duty payment and interest calculations.