9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Respondent. ORDER The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of chewing tobacco liable to Central Excise duty. The appellants are discharging their duty liability in terms of Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010. On 28-11-2011, they intimated their intention to discontinue commercial production of chewing tob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heir own. Had the appellants followed the proper procedure, the full amount as confirmed in the original order would have been paid and later, abatement would have been granted as per the actual dates of operation. As such, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the Government was deprived of the interest and hence, the same is payable by the appellant. Aggrieved by this order, the appellants filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 53520 of 2015-SM(BR), dated 24-11-2015 [2016 (335) E.L.T. 167 (Tri. - Del.)] held that when the machines were in-operative during the period in which the due date for payment falls, in such situation, the duty payable will be 5th of next month, in terms of 3rd proviso to Rule 9. 3. Ld. AR reiterated the findings of the Lower Authority in the impugned order. 4. Heard both the sides and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... milarly, during the period 1-2-2012 to 13-2-2012, there was no operating machine with the appellant. In other words, during the period in which the due date falls, there is no manufacturing operation by the appellant. Hence, it follows that no duty could be determined and paid by them by 5th of the same month. The machines were unsealed and allowed for operation much later and such situation will ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
