9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid by it during the month of January 2011. The Court is not satisfied that the demand of interest for a period of three months, which was occasioned on Department’s own inability to promptly decide the request of Assessee, is sustainable in law. Consequently, the Court leaves the question raised in the present case for examination in an appropriate case if the facts so warrant. - CEAC 1/2016 & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 1st May 2013 allowing the appeal of the Assessee against the Order-in-Original dated 27th November 2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner. 4. The facts in brief are that the Respondent Assessee manufactures pan masala containing gutka. The Assessee has ninety nine FFS machines of single track out of which eighty one FFS machines of single MRP of ₹ 1 per pouch were operative in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clear, the Department took three months to decide this request and sanctioned the abatement only on 4th May 2011. The question that arose was the justification for the demand of interest for the interim period between 5th February 2011 and 3rd May 2011. A demand was raised on the Assessee for the said interest amount, which was confirmed by the Order-in-Original dated 27th November 2012 of the Add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CESTAT. 7. The Court, however, is not inclined to entertain the appeal urging the above question. No plausible reason has been given by the Department in the first instance for the delay of three months in deciding the Assessee s request for abatement of the excess duty paid by it during the month of January 2011. The Court is not satisfied that the demand of interest for a period of three ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
