TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 702X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was closed from 01.05.2011 to 16.05.2011. On 01.05.2011 the respondent was not sure whether their factory will be function from 17.05.2011 or not. Therefore, respondent was not required to pay duty on 05.05.2011 but when the respondents factory became operational on 17.05.2011. Within five days thereof the respondent has paid duty for the period 17.05.2011 to 31.05.2011. Therefore, I hold that respondent have correctly paid the duty on pro rata basis and do not find any infirmity with the impugned order. Same is upheld. - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. E/53205/2014-EX(SM) - FINAL ORDER NO. 51669/2015-EX(SM) - Dated:- 13-5-2015 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) For the Petitioner : Shri D. Singh, DR For the Respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Masala manufacturers. Therefore harsher rules have been made for collection of duty and as per the rules the assessee is required to pay duty for whole of the month in advance by 5th day of the month during the month machine is in operation. In this case respondent has not paid duty for whole of the month by 05.05.2011, therefore, they are not entitled to claim abetment on pro rata basis and required to pay duty for 17.05.2011 to 31.05.2011. In these circumstances, the ld. Commissioner (A) has misinterpreted the rule. Therefore, impugned order is required to be set aside. He further submits that there should be a harmonious reading of rule 7, 9 and 10 and therefore conclusion has to be drawn whether the assessee is required to pay duty in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as under: The Production started w.e.f. 08.09.2010 and closed on 17.09.2010. The appellant were required to discharge their duty liability within a period of five days from the date of production. But the appellant intimated to the department that they are going to close their factory from 17.09.2010 and they discharged their duty liability from the period 08.09.2010 to 16.09.2010 on 11.09.2012 itself. 8. Therefore, the issue emerges that whether the appellant was entitled for abatement for the period of 17.09.2010 to 30.09.2010 that factory was closed more than 15 days. In that set of facts this Tribunal has held as under: The deposits of dues are required to be done by a manufacturer by the 5th of a particular month. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
