Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 272 - CESTAT NEW DELHIValuation - pan masala - duty liability of the appellant is fixed as per the number of packing machines operated during a particular month - Revenue entertained a view that irrespective of the closure of the unit and sealing of the machines, for more than 15 days in a month, the appellant /assessee is liable to pay full duty liability for all the machines by 5th of the given month and thereafter, obtain abatement of duty for closed period, from the jurisdictional officer - Held that: - The appellant could not pay duty by 5th of the same month as they have closed for operation during the period stipulated for payment of duty. By the end of the month, they were aware of the number of days for which the unit operated and also their exact duty liability on prorata basis. This duty liability was discharged subsequently in the next month. This will necessarily bring the liability for interest, which is admitted by the appellant also. We are not able to accept the view of the Revenue that the appellant have to first pay full duty liability for the all days, as determined by the jurisdictional officers and thereafter, after the end of the month, ascertaining the number of days closed, they should claim the excess paid amount, as abatement from the Department. No such procedure has been laid down in the said rules. Reliance also placed in the case of The Commissioner Versus M/s Thakkar Tobacco Products P. Ltd. [2015 (11) TMI 319 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], where it was held that when the duty stands reduced to the extent provided in the rule, there is no liability to pay the same, inasmuch as, to that extent the duty stands abated. Therefore, if the assessee has correctly calculated the proportion of duty and set off the same against the duty payable for the next month, it cannot be said that the said action is contrary to the statutory scheme. The demand of full duty liability from the appellant not justified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|