Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 2006 - AT - Central ExciseAbatement claim under Compounded Levy scheme - all the four machines were closed - Department has not allowed abatement by mentioning that the abatement is allowable by way of refund - HELD THAT:- It appears that in the case of TRIMURTI FRAGRANCES PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III [2015 (8) TMI 34 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] it was observed that this issue stands settled in favour of the appellant by the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of STEEL INDUSTRIES OF HINDUSTAN INDUSTRIAL AREA VERSUS CCE., GHAZIABAD [2013 (10) TMI 172 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], wherein in respect of similar provisions regarding 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 closure of the factory and allow the suo motto abatement but by providing reasonable opportunity to the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand.
|