2018 (2) TMI 1174

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to Rs. 33,49,067/- as abatement of duty under Rule 10 of the Rules as already deposited for the month of September 2013. The Adjudicating Authority sanctioned the abatement as claimed by the appellant and demanded interest on delayed payment of duty to the tune of Rs. 2,22,965/-, which was adjusted against the claim of abatement of Rs. 33,49,067/-. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (A) rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. Hence, the present appeal. 2. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 3. I find that the issue involved in this case is whether the appellant is liable for payment of interest on delayed payment of nine days from 06.09.2013 to 14.09.2013 on Rs. 5,02,36,000/- (whole month s duty) comes to Rs. 2,2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the declarant; and Serial No. 7 requires intimation/specification of the number of packing machines installed, which the manufacturer intends to operate in its factory for production of notified goods. Rule 7 specifies that the duty payable for a particular month shall be calculated by application of the appropriate rate of duty specified in the notification of the Government to the number of operating packing machines in the factory during the month. Rule 8 enjoins that in case of addition or installation or removal or uninstallation of a packing machine in the factory during the month, the number of operating packing machine for the month shall be taken as the maximum number of packing machines installed on any day during the month. The ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y, shall be paid by the 5th day of the following month." 5. The Tribunal in the case of Jaiswal Products Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-II reported in [2016 (344) E.L.T. 636 (Tri.-Del)] had held as under:- "4. The ld. Advocate, Sh. Prabhat Kumar appearing for the appellant submits that though Rule 9 provides that the duty liability has to be discharged on the 5th day of the same month, but due to the fact that the factory was closed on the said due date, the duty amount was deposited immediately upon re-commencement of the production activities i.e. on 24-6-2013. According to the Ld. Advocate, since there was no occasion/scope for payment of duty on 5th of June, 2013, and the amount was paid immediately on resumption ....