9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 492X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... default for payment of duty for one month would not be treated as default for all the remaining part of the full financial year. However, the default would continue till the duty for the said month is paid . Hence, in the instant case, the learned Commissioner has rightly demanded the differential duty along with interest for the available packing machines during the period of default. Board s clarifications are very categorical and clear wherein it is stated that the default would continue till the duty for the said month is paid. Hence, in the instant case, the learned Commissioner has rightly demanded the differential duty along with interest for the available packing machines during the period of default. Revenue is bound to follow t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, 2008, the same shall be paid on or before 15th day of July, 2008. Since the duty payable for the month of July 2008 was not paid within the due date, the respondent had contravened the provisions of Rule 9 of PPM (CDCD) Rules, 2008. Further, it is also observed that the respondent had continued to operate packing machines for packing Gutkha during the remaining months of the year. Therefore, it appeared that duty payable for the remaining months of the financial year i.e., from August 2008 to March 2009 had to be re-determined as per 7th Proviso to Rule 9 of PPM (CDCD) Rules, 2008. Since the respondent defaulted in payment, differential duty was demanded along with interest by the learned Commissioner in the impugned order. 2. The Rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peals filed by them before this Hon ble Tribunal vide Final Order No.20048-22050/2015 dated 12.10.2015 which has also been confirmed by the Hon ble High Court vide CEA No.50/2016 CEAs No.59-60/2016 dated 18.1.2017. 7. The issue to be decided in the present appeal is whether differential duty has to be paid only during the period of default on the highest number of machines installed/operated based on the amended provisions or as contended by the Revenue to be calculated in terms of proviso 7 of Rule 9 of PPM (CDCD) Rules, 2008 for the entire financial year as it stood prior to 27.2.2010. 8. The learned Commissioner vide para 34 and 35 of the impugned order has categorically referred to Board s clarifications and at para 36, he state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the learned Commissioner has rightly demanded the differential duty along with interest for the available packing machines during the period of default. Revenue is bound to follow the Board s clarification as per the decision rendered by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise vs. Dhiren Chemical Industries: 2002 (143) ELT 19 (SC). 8.4 Moreover, in respondent s own case, the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore vide its CEA No.50/2016 CEAs No.59 60/2016 dated 18.1.2017 has considered these Rules along with the relevant provisos and has rejected the Revenue s appeal. 9. In view of the above judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore and the Board s Clarifications vide F.No.341/10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
