9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 2006X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egarding levy of duty on compounded basis in respect of iron and steel product, Hon ble High Court had held that for claiming the abatement for the period of closure of the factory, depositing duty for the whole month is not a pre-condition and that in such cases the duty would be required to be paid only for the number of days for which a factory was working. It may be mentioned that in the factory, there were only four machines. If four machines are sealed then certainly factory is closed for the purpose of production. From the impugned order, it is not clear that for what period the four machines were closed. In other words, when the factory was closed. Matter remanded back to the adjudicating authority to decide the period for c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has not allowed by mentioning that the abatement is allowable by way of refund. First the appellant will have to deposit the duty and then can claim the refund. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 4. With the above background, we have heard Shri Rahul Tangri, Advocate for the appellant and Shri S.K. Bansal, DR for the respondent. 5. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that in the case of Trimurti Fragrances Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE Delhi 2015 (329) ELT 175 (Tri-Del) it was observed that: 6. As regards the dispute for the month of March, 2011 in respect of which duty demand of Rs. 32,25,805/- has been confirmed, there is no dispute that the factory was closed from 1st Mar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en by this Tribunal in the case of Shree Flavours Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi-IV reported in 2014 (304) E.L.T. 441 - Kuber Khani P. Ltd. v. CCE, Rohtak (Final Order No. 54525/2014, dated 20th November, 2014) Shri Padma Balaji Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Coimbatore reported in 2009 (246) E.L.T. 255 (Tri. - Chennai) and also in the appellant s own case for the previous period decided by this Tribunal s Final Order Nos. 50223-50232/2015, dated 21-1-2015. In view of this the duty demand of Rs. 32,25,805/- would not be sustainable. However, since the due date for payment of duty was 5th of the month and the appellant paid the duty only on 21-3-2011, the appellant in respect of the net duty payable by them, would be liable to pay interest on it as per th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
