9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant filed Form 1 in terms of Rule 6 of the said rules for installation and sealing of packing machines w.e.f. 30.06.2012 that is midnight of 29.06.2012 and permanent discontinuation w.e.f. said date. The appellant filed the abatement claim on 04.09.2012 against the amount of duty paid by the appellants towards the duty paid for the month of June 2012. It was the claim of the appellant that as their factory remained closed for more than a period of 15 days. Therefore, they are entitled for abatement. The abatement claim was rejected. Against that order appellant is before me. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that their factory was closed and machines were sealed on 24.02.2012 and in the month of June their factory was again op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid or not. Similar issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of Kays Fragrance Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) wherein the issue was that whether appellant is required to pay only net amount of duty payable after adjusting the abatement or not. In that case this Tribunal held that the appellant is not required to first pay the duty for whole of the month and then claim the abatement and that he is required to pay only the duty for the days for which machines were operating and only interest can be asked for the delayed payment. I have further seen that in the case of Shree Flavours Pvt. Ltd. wherein the facts of the case are as under: "The Production started w.e.f. 08.09.2010 and closed on 17.09.2010. The appellant were required to discharge their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... admitted closure of the factory. As such, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal itself, with consequential relief to the appellant." 9. I have gone through the impugned order as well as the case law relied upon by the Ld. Counsel. The denial of abatement is only on the ground that appellant is required to pay duty for whole of the month and thereafter to claim the abatement but that is not correct view in the light of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Shree Flavours Pvt. Ltd. (Supra). Therefore, I hold that appellant is entitled for abatement of duty as claim. 10. In these circumstances, impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any. (Dicatated and pronounced in the open court)< ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
