9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 550X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leviable. We find that the same view has also been taken by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Steel Industries of Hindustan vs CCE Gahziabad reported in [2013 (10) TMI 172 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], wherein Hon’ble High Court held that for claiming the abatement for the closure period, depositing the duty for the whole month was not a pre-condition under Rule 962B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. - Decisions in the case of Shri Flavours Pvt Ltd vs CCE Delhi-IV reported in [2014 (4) TMI 417 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], Kuber Khaini P. Ltd. vs CCE Rohtak (2015 (6) TMI 549 - CESTAT NEW DELHI), Shri Padma Balaji Steel Pvt. Ltd. vs CCE Coimbatore reported in [2009 (3) TMI 783 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] - Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scharging duty liability in respect of the Gutkha, Pan Masala/ Chewing Tobacco manufactured and cleared in a month, in advance by 5th of that month. In all these case, the factories of the assesses were closed during certain months for 15 days or more continuously and were eligible for rebate in terms of Rule 10 of the PMPM Rules and Rule 10 of the CTUTPM Rules. There is no dispute that for the period of closure, the assessee would be entitled for abatement. The only point of dispute is as to whether the appellant must have, first paid, the duty due for the whole month by the due date and then must have claimed abatement or whether the appellant are required to pay only the net amount of duty payable after adjusting the abatement. The Depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty for the whole month and then claim the abatement and that he is required to pay only the duty for the days for which the machines were operating and only the interest for the period from the due date to the date on which the adjusted duty chargeable was paid would be leviable. We find that the same view has also been taken by Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Steel Industries of Hindustan vs CCE Gahziabad reported in 2013 (293) ELT-191 All, wherein Hon ble High Court held that for claiming the abatement for the closure period, depositing the duty for the whole month was not a pre-condition under Rule 962B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. We are of the view that the ratio of these judgments is also squarely applicable to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
