2013 (11) TMI 1201

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on a show cause notice issued on 02.08.2012 for the period July 2008 to March 2012, on the ground that the appellant is liable to pay differential Central Excise duty under the provisions of Rule 9 of Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as PMPM Rules). 3. Ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant would take us through the show cause notice and Order-in-Original. It is his submission that the appellant had been assessed under the provisions of PMPM Rules and was discharging Central Excise duty as per the declaration given by them. It is his submission that during the period in question, the appellants had many a times defaulted in making payments of Ce....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d in 2012 cannot demand the duty for extended period and during that period, the appellant had been filing declaration and departmental officers were visiting the premises and either sealing or un-sealing the machines of the appellant. It is his submission that the appellant is having severe financial hardship and produces a copy of balance sheet for the year ending 31.03.2012 and submits that there is a loss and hence he requests for unconditional waiver of the amounts involved. 4. Ld. Additional Commissioner (A.R.), on the other hand, would reiterates the findings of the PMPM Rules and submit that said rules are very clear and unambiguous and if there is a default in discharging the payment before the due date, the appellant or an asse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that constitutional validity of these rules is under challenge before Hon'ble Apex Court. We would wait for the judgment of their Lordships before deciding the issue on merits. As regards the stay sought by the ld. Consultant, we find that the appellant has made out a case for non-invocation of extended period, in as much as it is undisputed that the appellant was always intimating jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner, as the case may be for sealing and unsealing of the machines during the particular month. It is also undisputed that though making the payments belatedly, the appellant had been discharging the duty liability as has been ascertained under PMPM Rules along with interest, wherever there is a belated payment....