Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Kuber Khaini (P) Ltd vs Cce, Rohtak on 20 November, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Date of hearing/decision:20.11.2014 E/Stay/52177/2014 along with Appeal No.E/51776/2014-EX(DB) [Arising out of Order-in-Original No.74/CE/COMMR/DM/RTK/2013-14 dated 31.12.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Haryana] M/s.Kuber khaini (P) Ltd. Appellants Vs. CCE, Rohtak Respondent
For approval and signature:
Honble Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) 1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes Appearance: Rep. by Ms. Seema Jain, Advocate for the appellant.
Rep. by Shri Yashpal Sharma, DR for the respondent.
CORAM: Honble Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Final Orders nos. 54525/ 2014 dated:20.11.2014 Per Archana Wadhwa:
The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of chewing tobacco and has two machines installed in their factory and were working in accordance with the provisions of chewing tobacco and unmanufactured tobacco in (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010 and were discharging their duty liability accordingly.
2. In the month of May, the packing machines installed in their factory were sealed from 1.05.2012 to 16.05.2012 . The same were desealed at night of 16.05.2012 and the appellants started manufacturing their final products from 17.05.2012 onwards and also deposited the duty for the period from 17.5.2012 onwards, by claiming the abatement for the period from 1.5.2012 to 16.05.2012.
3. The Revenue by entertaining a view that the appellant should have first deposited the duty for the entire month and then claimed abatement, initiated proceedings against them for confirmation of duty to the extent of Rs.51,61,290/-. The show cause notice issued to the appellant culminated into the present impugned order passed by the Commissioner.
4. The Commissioner in his impugned order has observed as under:-
I agree to the assessees contention that they were eligible for abatement provided under Rule 10 since the goods were not manufactured for 15 days or more but only after the duty was paid as per rules. As such, it is seen that there is no dispute about the appellants entitlement to the abatement and Revenues only objection is as regards the procedural violation. We find that an identical issue was the subject matter of the Tribunals decision in the case of Shree Flavours Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi-IV reported in 2014 (304) ELT 441 (Tribunal-Delhi), wherein by taking note of the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kaipan Pan Masala Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (285) ELT 296 (Tribunal), it was held that non-deposit of the duty and subsequent non-claiming of the abatement in violation of the procedure prescribed under the said Rules would not result in denial of substantive benefit to the appellant and the only consequence would be confirmation of interest.
5. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that they would deposit the interest amount of Rs.26,248/- confirmed in the present proceedings.
6. Inasmuch as the issue is decided, we deem it fit to dispose of the appeal itself as the ld. Advocate has given an undertaking for deposit of the interest. By following the above decision, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal except for confirmation of interest amount. The stay application as also appeal get disposed of in the above manner.
(Archana Wadhwa ) Member (Judicial) ( Rakesh Kumar ) Member (Technical) Ckp.