9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1557X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of Steel Industries of Hindustan [2013 (10) TMI 172 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that claiming the abatement for closure period depositing the duty for the whole month was not a pre-condition under Rule 96ZB of the CER, 1944 - the appellant has paid duty correctly but they are liable to pay interest for the period from the due date to the date they adjusted duty chargeable was paid. Penalty - Held that: - penalties are set aside. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant-assessee. - Excise Appeal No.E/55768, 55769/2014 and 55770/2014-EX(DB) - Final Order No.52951-52953/2015 - Dated:- 11-9-2015 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) and Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.1 12.5 L 137.5 L 62.10 L Feb, 2012 5 16.02.2012 to 29.02.2012 14 Rs.2 24 L 120 L 57.93 L March,2012 12 16.03.2012 1 10 machines ₹ 1 12.5 L and 24 L 89.29 L 132.35 L 17.03.2012 to 31.03.2013 Budgetary change w.e.f. 17.03.2012 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in advance and their machines were not working more than 15 days continuous period during the impugned period. As per the Rule 7 of the said Rules, duty is payable in advance on 5th day of the same month but in this case, on 5th day of the same month, machines were lying sealed by the department and no production on those machines have been done. Therefore, as per Rule 10 of the said Rules, the appellant is entitled to pay duty on proprata basis. Therefore, the impugned demands are not sustainable. 5. To support her contention, she relies on the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Shakti Fragrances Pvt. Ltd. in CEAC 29/2015 dated 5.8.2015, Shri Flavours Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi-IV reported in 2014 (304) ELT 441 (T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndustan reported in 2013 (293) ELT 191 (Allahabad), wherein the Honble High Court held that claiming the abatement for closure period depositing the duty for the whole month was not a pre-condition under Rule 96ZB of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Therefore, we hold that the appellant has paid duty correctly but they are liable to pay interest for the period from the due date to the date they adjusted duty chargeable was paid. With these terms, the appeal filed by M/s. Sompan Product Pvt. Ltd. is disposed of. We also hold that in such a situation no penalties are leviable on the appellants. Accordingly, penalties on all the appellants are set aside. Consequently, the appeals are disposed of in the above terms. [operative portion of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
