9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 430X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction of Duty) Rules, 2008. They had declared six operating machines and on this basis their monthly duty liability was Rs. 1,14,00,000/- which is paid in advance. In respect of July 2010, they had paid the duty of Rs. 1,14,00,000/- in advance. However, by the order dated 25/07/12 of the Government of Chhattisgarh, the manufacture and sale of gutkha was banned with immediate effect. The appellant on 26/07/12 intimated the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner with a copy to Jurisdictional Superintendent, Central Excise intimating him that the State Government has banned the manufacture and sale of gutkha in the State from 27/07/12, that in the present scenario they are compelled to stop the manufacturing activities and, therefore, they want ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the Deputy Commissioner /Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, and the duty paid for the month in accordance with the notification shall be adjusted towards the duty so calculated and on such adjustment, if there is any excess payment, it shall be refunded to the manufacturer by 20th day of the following month and deficiency, if any, shall be payable by him by the 5th of the following month". 1.2 The Commissioner reviewed the above order of the Assistant Commissioner and directed him to file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 10/09/13 allowed the Revenue's appeal and reversed the Assistant Commissioner's order on the ground that "he finds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... round on which the refund has been held as inadmissible is totally incorrect, as the letter dated 26/07/12 submitted by the assessee clearly mentions that they had intimate the Central Excise authorities about permanent closure of the factory because of ban on manufacture and sale of gutkha and pan masala. He, therefore, pleaded that the impugned order is not correct. 4. Shri Devender Singh, the learned DR, opposed the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel by reiterating 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... djustment, if there is any excess payment, it shall be refunded to the manufacturer by 20th day of the following month and deficiency, if any, shall be payable by him by the 5th of the following month. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner has refunded the disputed amount strictly in accordance with Rule 16 of the Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules, I therefore find 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
