TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 346
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led on 09/06/2011 intimated that they have paid duty amounting to Rs. 38,30,650/- through e-payment on 06/06/2011 towards liability for 16 days (i.e. w.e.f. 16/05/2011 to 31/05/2011) in the month of May, 2011. Thus there was short payment of duty of Rs. 36,29,028/- for 15 days in May, 2011. On the request of the Range Superintendent, the appellant informed vide letter dated 16/01/2012 that they have deposited differential duty of Rs. 36,29,028/- on 13/01/2012 along with interest of Rs. 3,97,304/- for 222 days w.e.f. 06/06/2011 to 13/01/2012. The appellant further informed vide letters dated 16/01/2012, 24/01/2012 & 03/02/2012 that they have deposited interest under protest amounting to Rs. 1,14,658/- for the period 06/05/2011 to 05/06/2011 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....), I find that the question for consideration in the Revenue appeal was with regard to applicability of proviso 3 to Rule 9 of PMPM Rules, 2008 in the matter of installation of 03 machines unsealed on 21/09/2012 and to decide whether the due date for monthly duty deposit in respect of 03 machines, unsealed on 21/09/2012, should be 05/09/2012 or 05/10/2012. My learned predecessor in his impugned order has found that 02 numbers of machines was made operative on 16/09/2012 and further 03 numbers of machines were installed/operated on 21/09/2012. Having been so, it establishes that the installation of subject machines was in fact, the increase in machines and it is indubitable that as soon as the increase in machines stands proved the 3rd provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e can be applied to something which already exists and not to nothing or nil . 16. In view of the above findings, I am in unison with the observations of the Adjudicating Authority to the extent that the due date of payment of duty in respect of six machines installed in the factory of the appellant on 16th day of May, 2011 (in 1st SCN) would be 5th day of May, 2011. It is also found in agreement with the decision of Tribunal in the cases mentioned supra (specially, in the case of Tirupati Fragrances). As regards payment of duty by the appellant after taking suo-motu abatement for the period of closure, following the judicial discipline in the matter already decided by the Tribunal in case referred supra, I hold that the appellant are not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se, Delhi-II reported at 2016 (335) E.L.T. 167 (Tri. Delhi). He has submitted that on all four occasions, whenever the machines were re-installed in the factory the Central Excise duty was paid on 5th of next month and therefore, there was no interest payable by them and the duty was paid properly and therefore, the order passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was contrary to such settled position of law in so far as interest was concerned. 4. Heard the ld. A.R. for Revenue, who has supported the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 21/12/2015. 5. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of the facts on record, I find that the issue to be decided in this case is, whether the Central Excise duty is to be paid on 5th of a particul....