TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 608
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the number of machines installed in the unit. Thereafter, the assessee can seek abatement, subject to the fulfillment of the procedure prescribed there under and the excise duty so deposited for that particular month is required to be refunded to them. 2. The appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 1.25 crores in advance towards their duty liability for the month of August 2011 in respect of 10 number of gutkha pouches packing machines. However, on 09.08.2011 they sought sealing of three machines, due to rainy season, Ramzan and less number of orders. Such request was accepted by the Revenue and three machines were sealed w.e.f. 11.08.2011 for a period of 10 days. On de-sealing of the said machines, subsequently, the same were resumed for product....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt authority. I also find that the intimation given by the party on 08.09.2011 merely mention that the duty of Rs. 25,40,322/- paid in advance was refundable to them by way of abatement of duty on 03 machines and due to financial hardship it was not possible for them to deposit the full duty on 07 machines for the month of September 2011 and then file an application for abatement whereas Rule 10 of the Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules 2008, inter-alia, stipulate that in case a factory did not produce the notified goods during any continuous period of fifteen days or more, the duty calculated on a proportionate basis shall be abated in respect of such period provided the manufacturer of such g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Central Excise duty and appropriate the same towards duty liability for the month of September 2011. ii) I hereby order recovery of interest on the amount as abated at (i) above, w.e.f. the due date of payment of duty for the month of September 2011 to till date under erstwhile section 11AB of the Central excise Act, 1944. iii) I hereby impose a penalty of Rs. 5000/- on M/s. Tanu Enterprises under Rule 27 of the Central Excise rules 2002." 4. The said order of the original adjudicating authority was challenged by the appellant in respect of confirmation of interest and in respect of imposition of penalty. The same was also challenged by the Revenue before the Commissioner (A). The appellate authority vide his impugned order rejected ....