TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 937X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f any gutkha from 28-7-2012 onwards. Assistant Commissioner has refunded the disputed amount strictly in accordance with Rule 16 of the Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules, I am therefore of prima facie view that this rule is applicable in the circumstances of this case. The ground on which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the Assistant Commissioner’s order sanctioning the refund is factually incorrect as from the Appellant’s letter to the Assistant Commissioner it is absolutely clear that the appellant wanted to stop the manufacture of gutkha permanently in view of ban on its manufacture and sale. In view of this, the appellant have a strong prima facie case in their favour. The requirement of pre-deposit of the disputed amount of ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sealed by the jurisdictional Central Excise officers. The appellant surrendered their registration certificates on 30th July, 2012. Since the machines had been sealed in the evening of 27th July, 2012 and, as such, they could not manufacture gutkha from 27-7-2012, the appellant filed a refund claim for an amount of ₹ 14,70,768/- in respect of the duty for the period from 28-7-2012 to 31-7-2012, as they had already paid the duty for the entire month of July, 2012 in advance. The refund claim was sanctioned by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 25-10-2012. The refund claim was sanctioned on the basis of Rule 9 and 16 of the Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules. In this regard Rule 16 of the Pan Masala P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have already done as common practice for intimation of sealing of pouch packing machines and de-sealing for pouch packing machines many times and that the said intimation later does not reveal regarding permanent closure of production of the notified goods of the existing retail price . It is on this basis that the Commissioner (Appeals) held that sanction of the refund under the provisions of Rule 9 read with Rule 16 of the Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules is not admissible. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal has been filed along with stay application as the amount has already been paid to the appellant and in view of the Commissioner (Appeals) s order, the same has become recoverable. 2. Heard both the sides ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order and pleaded that since the appellant had surrendered the license on 30th July, 2012, the refund has been correctly denied. 5. I have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. On going through the letter dated 26-7-2012 of the appellant addressed to the Assistant Commissioner with a copy endorsed to the Range Superintendent, it is seen that the appellant clearly informed the Assistant Commissioner that in view of the ban on manufacture and sale of gutkha and pan masala imposed by the State Government with effect from 27-7-2012 they are compelled to stop their manufacturing activities and for this reason they wish to permanently dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
