Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Karur Kcp Packaging Ltd vs Cce, Pondicherry on 13 August, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
E/356/2007
(Arising out of Order in Appeal No. 11/2007 (P) (D) dated 30.04.2007, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, (Appeals), Trichy).
For approval and signature
Honble Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member
______________________________________________________________
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the :
order for Publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether the Honble Member wishes to see the fair :
copy of the Order.
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the :
Departmental Authorities? ______________________________________________________________
M/s. Karur KCP Packaging Ltd. : Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Pondicherry : Respondent
Appearance Shri M. N. Bharati, Adv., for the appellant Shri V.V. Hariharan, JCDR, for the respondent CORAM Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member Date of hearing : 13.08.09 Date of decision : 13.08.09 Final ORDER No._____________ Heard both sides. In this case, the appellants were required to pay the duty for the month of June05 and July05 respectively on 5th July05 and 5th August05. However, the appellants paid the duty amount respectively on 05.08.05 and 05.09.05. The departments case is that they come under the provision of Sub-rule 8 (3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, since there is a gap of 30 days in between due date of payment of duty and the actual date of payment of duty.
2. Shri M.N. Bharati, Ld. Advocate, appearing for the appellants states that the appellants were under the impression that they could pay the duty amount within a month and they have done so but since the respective months of July and August were of 31 days, the payment has been technically made beyond the 30th day having been made on the 31st day. He also submits that in the second incidence, the 30th day was the Government holiday being Sunday; no payment could have been made that day. He also states that the sub-rule (3A) of Rule 8 at the material time referred to the date prescribed in sub-rule (2) as has been correctly noted by the lower appellate authority. But it is a fact that no date has been prescribed under sub-rule (2).
3. Heard Ld. JCDR Shri V.V. Hariharan. He states that the reference to sub-rule (3A) of Rule 8 should be to the date prescribed in sub-rule (1) which appears to be correctly done in the later version of the Central Excise Manual.
4. After hearing both sides, I find that the appellants have paid the duty on the31st day and in the second instance they had no choice to pay on the 30th day which was a Government holiday. Moreover, I find that the impugned sub-rule (3A) of Rule 8 makes a reference to sub-rule (2) at the material time which has already been noted by the lower appellate authority and stated in para-2 of his order. In view of the fact that the sub-rule (2) does not prescribe a date, the appellants deserve to be given the benefit of doubt. Hence, extending them the benefit of doubt while taking into account the payment that has already been made on the 31st day ie. during the month, the impugned orders passed by the authorities below is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court) (Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER BB 3