TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 1104
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....provisions of Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines Rules, 2010, notified under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Rule 6 of the said rules provides that a manufacturer has to file a declaration in the prescribed form, declaring inter-alia, the number of packing machines installed in the factory. Manner of payment of duty is contained in Rule 9 of the said rules, which mandates that the monthly duty payable on notified goods shall be paid by the 5th day of the said month. Interest liability for non-payment of the amount of duty within the stipulated time is contained in the second proviso to Rule 9 of the said rules, according to which, interest shall be payable at the applicable rate, for the period....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed on the 5th day of the relevant month and the appellant deposited the duty on 24.06.2013, interest liability is automatic, which is required to be paid by the appellant. The interest liability confirmed in the adjudication order was appealed against by the appellant before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal was disposed of vide the impugned order, wherein the period of delay was reduced from 19 to 18 days, but the interest liability confirmed in the adjudication order was upheld. Confirmation of interest liability in the impugned order is the subject matter of present dispute before this Tribunal. 4. The Ld. Advocate, Sh. Prabhat Kumar appearing for the appellant submits that though Rule 9 provides that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spective of the fact as to whether the machines were in operation or not. It is his further submission that second proviso to Rule 9 clearly provides that in absence of non-payment of the duty within the stipulated date i.e. the 5th of the same month, the assessee is exposed to the interest liability. 6. Heard the ld. counsel for both sides and perused the records. 7. The short question involved in this appeal for consideration by this Tribunal is as to whether the interest liability is required to be discharged by the appellant especially in view of the undisputed fact that the factory was not in operation during the period from 01.06.2013 to 22.06.2013, and the duty abatement was allowed by the department based on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iability cannot be fastened on the appellant. 9. The second proviso affixed to Rule 9, providing for payment of interest for delayed payment of duty, in my opinion, is not applicable to the facts of this case, inasmuch as, interest liability is fastened in a situation where the manufacturer fails to pay the duty by the due date. In the case in hand, the production activity in the factory of the appellant was continuously suspended for a period of 22 days, w.e.f. 1st of June' 2013. Thus, there was no scope or event to pay the duty on the 5th day of the said month. Rather, the case of the appellant is more akin to the third proviso to Rule 9 read with sub-rule (5) of Rule 6 and second proviso to Rule 10, which deal with un-installa....