9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 608X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ropped the demand but since there was contravention of the provisions the penalty was rightly imposed by him along with confirmation of interest - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/55788/2013-EX(SM) - FINAL ORDER NO. 51981/2017-EX(SM) - Dated:- 27-2-2017 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Shri Kamaljit Singh, Advocate for the Applicants Shri Dharam Singh, DR for the Respondent ORDER After hearing both the sides, I find that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of gutkha and during the relevant period was working under the provisions of Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules 2008. In terms of the provisions of the said rule duty liability for a par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ind that the party deposited an amount of ₹ 1,25,00,000/- on 04.08.2011 towards duty liability for the month of August 2011 in respect of 10 Gutkha pouch packing machines of MRP ₹ 1/- only and as per intimation dated 07.08.2011 given by the party 03 machines were sealed with Central Excise seal by the Range officer on the night of 10th August 2011 w.e.f. 11.08.2011 and these there machines remained sealed throughout the month of August 2011. I also find that the duty amounting to ₹ 25,40,322/- (calculated for a period from 11.08.2011 to 31.08.2011) on these three machines paid by the party in advance on 04.08.2011 for the month of August 2011 was adjusted / abated by them on their own towards the duty liability of 7 machin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chines rules 2008, for which I hold them liable for penal action under rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. I agree with the party s contention that abatement of duty is admissible to them for closure period as the duty of ₹ 25,40,322/- had already been paid by the party on 04.08.2011 the same is liable to be abated and appropriated towards duty liability for the month of September 2011 and further as they have on their own availed abatement of the said amount without issue of orders from competent authority in this regard, I hold them liable to pay interest on the said amount at appropriate rate w.e.f. the due date for the month of September 2011 till 26.07.2012. In view of the above, I therefore, pass the following order: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stion required to be decided in the present appeal is as to whether on account of failure of the assessee to seek refund of the abatted amount instead of suo motto adjusting the same, would become liable to pay the said adjusted amount or not. It is not the Revenue s case that such abatement was not available to the assessee. The only objection seems to be that they should not have adjusted the said abatted amount for the subsequent period. The original adjudicating authority has observed that though it is contravention to the rules for which he has imposed penalty of ₹ 5000/- on them but has observed that these fact will itself not result in denial of the abatement which is otherwise available to the assessee. 6. Tribunal in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
