TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant promptly deposited the duty on the very next day, i.e. on 24.06.2013, hence, there was no delay in payment of duty and therefore the interest liability cannot be fastened on the appellant by the authorities below in view of the principle decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha Processors vs UOI [1996 (10) TMI 88 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], wherein it has been held that the interest is compensatory in character and is imposed on the assessee who has withheld payment of any tax as and when it is due and payable. The impugned order is set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant - Excise Appeal No. E/51382/2014-E[SM] - Final Order No. 54019/2015 - Dated:- 3-7-2015 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) For the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l be paid by the 5th day of the following month. In case a factory did not produce the notified goods during any continuous period of fifteen days or more, Rule 10 of the said rules provides for abatement from the duty already paid in advance for the said month. 3. In the present case, the factory of the appellant was not in operation during the period from 01.06.2013 to 22.06.2013. Thus, in terms of Rule 10 of the said rules, the appellant had applied for abatement of duty, which was considered by the Jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities. Out of total duty of ₹ 32 lakhs paid by the appellant for the month of June' 2013, an amount of ₹ 23, 36,667/- was sanctioned as abatement. However, out of such sanctioned amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... June' 2013, and the amount was paid immediately on resumption of production activities, the interest liability cannot be fastened on the appellant. To support such views, the ld. Advocate contends that instead of the second proviso of Rule 9, the third proviso contained therein is applicable to the facts of the case, according to which, the duty for the month of June' 2013 is payable on the 5th day of the next month; thus, there is no delay in payment of the duty amount. In context with non-payment of interest, the ld. Advocate relies on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha Processors vs UOI, reported in 1996 (88) ELT 12 (S.C.) and UOI vs Bangalore Wire Rod Mill reported in 1996 (83) ELT 251 (S.C.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le 9, denotes that the packing machines installed in the factory shall be operational throughout the month. In case of non-production of the notified goods for a continuous period of fifteen days or more, provisions have been made under Rule 10 for refund of the amount of duty paid in advance by way of abatement. On a conjoint reading of Rules 9 and 10, it transpires that if the production activity is suspended beyond a period of fifteen days, then duty liability for those days cannot be fastened on the manufacturer. In the case in hand, since the production activity was suspended on 01.06.2013 and continued till 22.06.2013, in my opinion, there was no occasion for payment of duty in advance on 05.06.2013 for the whole month of June' 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
