TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act. The appellant failed to pay the duty on the due date i.e. 05.09.2013 and paid a part of the duty only on proportionate basis for running of the machine for the remaining days w.e.f. 16.09.2013 on 14.09.2013 - the Tribunal observed that failure to pay monthly duty by 5th day of the same month under Rule 9 of the Rules would not invite liability of interest as in the case of claim of abatement as the duty was paid in the same month. The demand of interest is set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/75453/2015 - Order No. FO/A/78761/2017 - Dated:- 19-12-2017 - Shri P. K. Choudhary, Hon ble Judicial Member Shri Avra Mazumder, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S. Mukhopadhyay, Suptd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acking machines were inoperative during 1-7-2013 to 7-7-2013 these should have been considered as uninstalled with effect from 1-7-2013 and reinstalled on 8-7-2013 and on this premise, the third proviso to Rule 9 would be applicable. The third proviso to Rule 9 enacts that in case of increase in the number of operating packing machines in the factory during the month on account of addition or installation of packing machines, the differential duty amount, if any, shall be paid by the 5th day of the following month. On the substratum of this contention, ld. Counsel for the appellant urges that since reinstallation of the packing machines had occurred on 8-7-2013 the liability to remit duty under third proviso to Rule 9 was by 5th August, 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed machines. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 6 however enacts that the machine which the manufacturer does not intend to operate shall be uninstalled and sealed by the Superintendent of Central Excise and removed from the factory premises under his physical supervision; and the proviso thereto states that where it is not feasible to remove such packing machine out of the factory premises, it shall be uninstalled and sealed by the Superintendent of Central Excise in such a manner that it cannot be operated. 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 its intention not to operate a packing machine and the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In context with non-payment of interest, the ld. Advocate relies on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha Processors v. UOI, reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.) and UOI v. Bangalore Wire Rod Mill reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 251 (S.C.). 6. I find that the appellant paid the total amount of duty of ₹ 2,51,18,000/- as duty liability for the month of September 2013 for operating one packing machine, which was kept sealed till 15.09.2013 and was de-sealed and installed on 16.09.2013. The machine was again uninstalled and sealed on 28.09.2013 under the supervision of the range superintendent. 7. The adjudicating authority observed that the appellant failed to pay the duty on the due date i.e. 05.09. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
