9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 685X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Joint Commissioner (AR), - for Respondent ORDER Per: Ashok Jindal Appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the claim of abetment has been rejected by the authorities bellow. 2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant is manufacturer of Pan Masala containing Tobacco which is known as Gutkha and paying duty under Pan Masala Packing Machines ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal has entertained the issue reported in 2015-TIOL-2978-CESTAT-DEL wherein this Tribunal observed, as under:- "7. In this case the short issue emerges whether appellant is required to pay duty for whole of the period or required to pay duty on pro rata basis after availing the abatement for closure period and consequently is entitled to claim the abatement of excess duty paid or not. Simila ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. But the appellant intimated to the department that they are going to close their factory from 17.09.2010 and they discharged their duty liability from the period 08.09.2010 to 16.09.2010 on 11.09.2012 itself." 8. Therefore, the issue emerges that whether the appellant was entitled for abatement for the period of 17.09.2010 to 30.09.2010 that factory was closed more than 15 days. In that set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efit available to him in terms of the rules, in question. As the appellant have already deposited the interest amount and is not contesting the same, we find no justification for confirmation of demand against him for the period of admitted closure of the factory. As such, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal itself, with consequential relief to the appellant." 9. I have gone thro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
