2015 (10) TMI 663 - HC - Central Excise

Appeal Dismissed in CEA-4-2015 Due to Previous Judgment, 40-Day Delay Condoned

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the appeal in case CEA-4-2015 as it was covered by a previous judgment. The delay of 40 days in filing the ... Manufacture of chewing tobacco - compounded levy scheme - Closure of factory - Period of closure - High Court dismissed the appeal of Revenue following the decision of Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak v. M/s. Kay Fragrance (P) Ltd., Village Livaspur, Bahadurgarh [2013 (9) TMI 697 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT]. The appeal was filed against decision of Tribunal [2013 (9) TMI 697 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT]; wherein tribunal held that Rules required a manufacturing unit to deposit the entire duty for that particular month by 5th day of that particular month. If subsequently the unit is closed, they are given liberty to file abatement and seek refund of duty. However, in a scenario where a manufacturing unit is aware of the closure of its unit, before the duty is deposited by him for the entire month, he may seek abatement at that particular point of time, make deposit of duty for working days only. The non following of the said procedure, may result in confirmation of interest against the assessee, but will not result in denial of the substantive benefit available to him in terms of the rules, in question. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the appeal in case CEA-4-2015 as it was covered by a previous judgment. The delay of 40 days in filing the appeal was condoned.