Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Murari Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswalo ... vs C.C.E., Delhi-Ii on 14 July, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066
BENCH-SM
COURT III
Excsie Appeal No.E/55451/2014-EX[SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.40/SM/CE/D-II/14 dated 30.07.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Faridabad]
For approval and signature:
HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s.Murari Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswalo (P) Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
C.C.E., Delhi-II Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Shri.S.Dabas, Advocate
Present for the Respondent: Shri.G.R. Singh, D.R.
Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 14.07.2016
FINAL ORDER NO.52640/2016
PER: S.K. MOHANTY
The issue involved in this case relates to payment of interest for delayed payment of central excise duty.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in manufacture of Khaini (chewing tobacco) and is governed under the provisions of Chewing Tobacco and Un-manufactured Tbacco Packing Machines, Rules, 2010 ( in short referred to as the Rules, 2010), notified under Section 3A of the erstwhile Central Excise Act, 1944. The factory of the appellant was closed from 01.01.2014 to 21.01.2014 (21 days) during the month of January, 2014 and the duty for the said month was deposited on 22.01.2014. In terms of Rule 9 of the Rules, 2010, the Department confirmed the interest liability for the period of 17 days i.e. from 05.01.2014 to 21.01.2014. The said demand was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 30.07.2014. Hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal.
2. Shri S.Dabas, the ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that since, the factory of the appellant was closed from 01.01.2014 to 21.01.2014 and on commencement of the production activities, the duty amount was deposited on 22.01.2004, there is no loss of Revenue, and as such, there is no question of payment of any interest. In this context, the ld. Advocate has relied on the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Jaiswal Products (Final Order No. A/54019/2015 SM-(Br.) dated 03.07.2015 and Trimurty Fragrance Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Delhi-II - 2016 (335) ELT 167 (Tri.-Del.).
3. Shri G.R. Singh, the ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order.
4. I find that the factory of the appellant was closed during the period 1st January, to 21st January, 2014 and due intimation to that effect was filed by the appellant before the Jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities. Since the duty liability was discharged by the appellant immediately upon commencement of the production activities, in my opinion, there is no delay in payment of duty and as such, the interest liability, which is compensatory in character, cannot be fastened on the appellant. The issue arising out of the present dispute is no more res-integra in view of the decisions cited by the ld. Advocate for the appellant.
5. In view of the above, I do not find any merits in the impugned order, and thus, the same is set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant.
[Dictated and Pronounced in the Open Court] (S.K. MOHANTY) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Anita ??
??
??
??
0 3