TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1079X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts, it amounts to addition of a machine and the due date for payment of duty is 5th of the next month - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/70191/2017-EX [ SM ] - Final Order No. A/71934/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 20-9-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member ( Judicial ) Shri T. R. Rustagi, Advocate, for Appellant Shri Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The issue in this appeal is, whether the appellant is liable to pay interest for alleged late payment of duty under the fact that the packing machines were lying uninstalled and had been reinstalled after 5th of June and the duty for the month of June had been paid on 24th June, 2015, u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facturing activities and there was no removal of notified goods during the said period whereas the appellant paid duty amounting to ₹ 3,09,10,000/- for the month of June, 2015 on 24th June, 2015 by Challan and accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner held that the appellant was entitled for abatement for the period of 19 days of June, 2015, under CTUT Packing Machines Rules, 2010. Further, the Assistant Commissioner referred to the report of the Range Office dated 27/08/2015, stating that the appellant is liable to pay an interest of ₹ 2,93,645/- for delayed payment of duty during the month of June, 2015. As the appellant was liable to deposit the duty for June, 2015 on 05/06/2015 (due date whereas they have deposited the duty on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Delhi) a Coordinate Bench has held, under similar rules in the case of pan masala, where for the month of July, 2013, the duty was paid on 27th July, 2013 under the fact that the packing machine was lying inoperative or closed from 1st July, 2013 to 27th July, 2013 which was held as follows:- 8. On true, fair and interactive analysis of the Rules and in particular Rules 6 to 13 the conclusion is irresistible and compelling that where during any period, a manufacturer intimates the intention not to operate packing machine and the same is sealed by the Authorized Officers, such machine is deemed to have been uninstalled in terms of Rule 6(5). Third proviso to Rule 9 provides that in case of increase in the number of operating packing mac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
