Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 550 - CESTAT NEW DELHIAbatement of duty - whether the appellant must have, first paid, the duty due for the whole month by the due date and then must have claimed abatement or whether the appellant are required to pay only the net amount of duty payable after adjusting the abatement - Held that:- Assessee is not required to just pay the duty for the whole month and then claim the abatement and that he is required to pay only the duty for the days for which the machines were operating and only the interest for the period from the due date to the date on which the adjusted duty chargeable was paid would be leviable. We find that the same view has also been taken by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Steel Industries of Hindustan vs CCE Gahziabad reported in [2013 (10) TMI 172 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], wherein Hon’ble High Court held that for claiming the abatement for the closure period, depositing the duty for the whole month was not a pre-condition under Rule 962B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. - Decisions in the case of Shri Flavours Pvt Ltd vs CCE Delhi-IV reported in [2014 (4) TMI 417 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], Kuber Khaini P. Ltd. vs CCE Rohtak (2015 (6) TMI 549 - CESTAT NEW DELHI), Shri Padma Balaji Steel Pvt. Ltd. vs CCE Coimbatore reported in [2009 (3) TMI 783 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] - Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside except to the extent that the appellants be liable to pay interest for the period of delay in payment of the adjusted duty from the due date - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
|