9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 702X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and collection of duty) Rules 2008. During the period 01.05.2011 to 16.05.2011 the Pan Masala Packing Machines were sealed and were not in function. On 17.05.2011 the production started de-sealing of the machine on the said date. The respondent paid the duty for the period 17.05.2011 till 31.05.2011 on pro rata basis. Proceedings were initiated against the respondent on the premise that as per rule 10 of the Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and collection of duty) Rules 2008 the respondent is entitled for abetment of duty for the period of closure of the machine but the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand. But on appeal ld. Commissioner held that respondent is entitled to pay duty on prorate basis on 17.05.2011. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assesse paid the duty for four days and the claim of the assessee was of abetment of excess duty paid for 30.06.2012. In that case this tribunal observed in para 7, 8 & 9 as under: "7. In this case the short issue emerges whether appellant is required to pay duty for whole of the period or required to pay duty on pro rata basis after availing the abatement for closure period and consequently is entitled to claim the abatement of excess duty paid 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 req ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that particular point of time, make deposit of duty for working days only. The non-following of the said procedure may result in confirmation of interest against the assessee, but will not result in denial of the substantive benefit available to him in terms of the rules, in question. As the appellant have already deposited the interest amount and is not contesting the same, we find no justification for confirmation of demand against him for the period of 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 g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
