Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (11) TMI 934 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

2016 (11) TMI 934 - CESTAT HYDERABAD - TMI - Refund claim - compounded levy scheme - abatement in case of non-production of goods - The appellant started production of Gutkha under compounded levy scheme w.e.f. 01/04/2011 with one machine and paid the duty under the compounded levy scheme. Subsequently the appellant installed another machine on 16/04/2011 and commenced production from 16/04/2011 onwards. - Held that: - Rule 10 of the PMPM rules speaks about the abatement in case of non-productio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

had not installed the machines in the factory. It is not disputed that the appellant paid whole duty of ₹ 12,25,000/- for the whole month against the second machine. It is also not disputed that the second machine was neither installed nor operated during the period from 01/04/2011 to 15/04/2011 (both days inclusive). Rule (C) provides that appellant is eligible for abatement during the period for which goods were not produced if such period is not less than 15 days. In case, appellant ha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

itled to abatement. - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No.E/1516/2012 - FINAL ORDER No.A/30869/2016 - Dated:- 19-9-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (J) Shri Y Sreenivasa Reddy, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Arun Kumar, Asst. Commissioner(AR) for the respondent. [Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.,] The appellants are manufacturers of pan masala containing tobacco commonly known as Gutkha. They started production of Gutkha under compounded levy scheme w.e.f. 01/0 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

interest of ₹ 4,932/- on 12/04/2011 being the compounded duty for the full month of April 2011 in regard to the second machine. The appellant thereafter filed refund claim for the excess paid amount of ₹ 6,25,000/-. A show-cause notice was issued to the appellant proposing to deny refund on the ground that appellant is not eligible for the abatement claimed as per Rule 10 of the Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 (PMPM Rules). Afte .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

itted that as the appellant has installed two machines in the factory during the relevant time, the duty paid is right and proper and that appellants are not eligible for the abatement. 3. have gone through the records and heard the submissions made by both sides. Rule 10 of the PMPM rules speaks about the abatement in case of non-production of goods. That the said Rule states that when the factory did not produce the notified goods during any continuous period of fifteen days or more, the y dut .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version