9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 680X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cided in favor of appellant. - E/28335/2013-SM - 20889/2017 - Dated:- 8-6-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Mr. Surendran N.P, Manager For the Appellant Shri Mohd. Yousaf, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 11.9.2013 passed by the Commissioner (A) wherein the Commissioner (A) has allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue and set aside the Order-in-Original. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that appellants are manufacturers of Pan Masala containing Tobacco (also known as Gutkha) falling under Chapter 24 of the Central Excise Tariff At, 1985 They had filed an application claiming refund of interest of ₹ 1,35,277/- (p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008. The Commissioner (A) after considering the grounds of appeal, allowed the appeal of the department and hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. The representative of the appellant has appeared and filed the written submissions and requested to dispose of the matter on the basis of written submissions and the grounds of appeal taken by them in appeal by the appellant. The appellant has stated in the grounds of appeal that the order passed by the Commissioner (A) is not sustainable in law as the Commissioner (A) has not considered the submissions of the assessee and the binding judicial precedents on the issue. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te as per the Rules. Further, I also find that the Commissioner (A) has not considered the various judgments relied upon by the appellant in support of his submissions. In view of the judgments of the Delhi High Court in the case of Son Pam Products Alloys Pvt. Ltd. cited supra, the interest is required to be paid on duty i.e., as arrived at after self-abatement. Therefore, in view of the various decisions cited supra, I am of the view that the original authority has rightly granted the refund after following the Rules prescribed under Rule 9 of Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 and the impugned order has not considered the various judgments which are squarely in favour of the appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
