Tribunal grants relief to appellant, exempts duty during non-operational period.

The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, setting aside the order demanding differential duty payment on a pro-rata basis. The appellant was found entitled to abatement of duty for the period the machine was not operational, following the prescribed procedure for sealing and desealing. The Tribunal cited relevant rules and precedents, concluding that duty need not be paid in advance if the machine was non-operational, resulting in a revenue-neutral situation. The appellant was granted relief, affirming their entitlement to abatement and exemption from duty during the non-operational period.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the duty paid on a pro-rata basis by the appellant is correct.
2. Whether the appellant is entitled to abatement of duty for the period the machine was not operational.

Summary:

Issue 1: Duty Payment on Pro-Rata Basis
The department contended that the duty paid on a pro-rata basis by the appellant was incorrect. They argued that the duty for the entire month must be deposited first, and then a refund should be claimed for the closure period of the machine. A show cause notice was issued demanding the differential duty, which was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. The appellant appealed against this order.

Issue 2: Entitlement to Abatement of Duty
The appellant argued that there is a clear provision for abatement of duty if the machine is not operational for a minimum of 15 days in a month. They followed the procedure for sealing and desealing the machine, which was not disputed by the department. The appellant claimed that there was no prescribed procedure for refunding the abated duty, making the entire proceeding baseless.

The Tribunal found that Rule 9 requires duty to be paid by the 5th of the month, but Rule 10 provides for abatement if the machine is not operational for at least 15 days. Since the appellant followed the procedure and the machine was closed for the required period, they were entitled to abatement. The Tribunal cited several judgments and a CBEC Circular supporting the appellant's claim that duty need not be paid in advance if the machine was not operational, making it a revenue-neutral situation.

The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in *Commr. Of C. Ex. Vs. Angadpal Indl. Pvt. Ltd* and other cases, which held that substantial benefits like abatement should not be denied on procedural grounds. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to abatement and not required to pay duty for the non-operational period.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief, affirming that the appellant was entitled to abatement and not required to pay duty during the period the machine was not operational.

---