https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187465 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) decision regarding interest payment on duty liability for the months of December 2011 and February 2012. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, emphasizing that duty payment dates should align with actual manufacturing operations, especially when machines are inoperative during the due date period. By invoking the third proviso to Rule 9 of the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines Rules, 2010, the Tribunal clarified that duty liability is based on operational days rather than fixed monthly due dates, promoting a practical interpretation of excise duty payment rules. en-us Tue, 19 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 22 Oct 2016 14:46:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187465 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) decision regarding interest payment on duty liability for the months of December 2011 and February 2012. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, emphasizing that duty payment dates should align with actual manufacturing operations, especially when machines are inoperative during the due date period. By invoking the third proviso to Rule 9 of the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines Rules, 2010, the Tribunal clarified that duty liability is based on operational days rather than fixed monthly due dates, promoting a practical interpretation of excise duty payment rules. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 19 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187465