2015 (10) TMI 913

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s 99 FFS machines of Single Track out of which 81 FFS Machines of single MRP Rs. 1 per pouch were operative in the month of January, 2011, i.e., 1-1-2011 to 15-1-2011 and 18 FFS machines of single track were already sealed and installed. The respondent paid duty for 81 FFS Machines of Single Track at the rate of Rs. 12.5 lakhs per machine in terms of Rule 7 of Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008. There was no production in the respondent's factory from 16-1-2011 till 31-3-2011. Therefore, the respondent was entitled for abatement of duty under Rule 10 of the said rules for the period of closure during the month of January, 2011 which was paid in excess. Therefore, the amount of abatement w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....suo motu. Therefore, impugned order is required to be set aside. He also relied on the decision in the case of K.L. Concast (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 2007 (209) E.L.T. 425 (Tri.-Del). 4. On the other hand ld. Counsel for the respondent submits that there is no provision in the Pan Masala Packing Machine Rules that the respondent is required to make an application for abatement and that abatement is to be granted by department officers. The Provisions of Rule 10 of the said rules specifies that the duty calculated shall be abated but there is no requirement to file application thereon. It is not in dispute that respondent are entitled to claim abatement and it was intimated to the department in advance that in the month of February, 2011 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or demand of duty has been issued to the respondent. Therefore, demand of interest is not sustainable. Moreover, in this case, the show cause notice for demand of interest has been issued by invoking extended period of limitation and for that the ld. AR relied on the decision in the case of K.L. Concast (P) Ltd. (supra) but the issue was dealt by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Kwality Ice Cream Company v. UOI - 2012 (281) E.L.T. 507 (Del.) wherein it was held that the period of limitation prescribed for claim of amount should also apply to the claim for interest thereon. Therefore, to demand the interest, the normal period is one year and if it is required to invoke extended period of limitation then it is five years. Admittedly....