9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1040X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of the same month. There is nothing in Rule 9 to suggest that the failure to pay the duty payable on all the machines upfront by the 5th day of a month would disentitle the Assessee to claim pro rata abatement of duty. The requirement under Rule 10 of giving intimation three days prior to the closure has been complied with by the Assessee. Failure to make the payment of duty on fifth day of every month cannot result in depriving the Assessee of the pro rata abatement of duty which he is in any way entitled to since admittedly in the present case there has been a closure of the factory from 14th to 31st August 2012 and an abatement order has also been passed on 28th August 2012. However, the Assessee would be liable to pay the interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 31st August 2012. By an abatement order dated 28th August 2012, the Respondent paid central excise duty of ₹ 95,61,290 for 13 days from 1st to 13th August 2012 on pro rata basis. 4. Stating that on the harmonious reading of Rules 7, 8 and 9 of PMPM Rules, the Assessee was required to pay upfront the central excise duty on all the machines put to operation during the month and that it had paid duty only for 13 days, the Department issued a SCN to the Assessee on 23rd May 2013 asking it to show cause why it should not be asked to pay the duty of ₹ 1,32,38,710 along with the interest as well as penalty under Rule 17 of the PMPM Rules. 5. By the order dated 13th January 2014, the Commissioner confirmed the demand of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld be the liability to pay interest. 9. The aforementioned decision in Shree Flavours Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE Delhi-IV (supra) was challenged by the Revenue before the High Court of Punjab Haryana by way of CEA No. 4 of 2015 (O M) in the High Court of Punjab Haryana. By an order dated 7th May 2015, the Division Bench of the Punjab Haryana High Court dismissed the said appeal following its earlier decision dated 4th October 2007 in Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak v. Kay Fragrance (P) Ltd. (CEA 52 of 2013). 10. The Court has been shown the judgment of the High Court of Punjab Haryana in Kay Fragrance (P) Ltd. The question addressed there was whether the duty liable was to be determined under the PMPM Rules for each month separat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
