9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n pro-rata basis - the appellant is not entitled to claim refund of the same. The payment of duty for the machine manufacturing/ packing pouches having MRP of ₹ 5.00 each is a separate proceedings and duty has been paid separately for that and for the machine packing pouches having MRP of ₹ 2.80, the duty has been paid separately and separate refund claim has been filed by the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rules, 2010. During the period, 01.07.2014 to 15.07.2014, on one machine, the appellant was manufacturing/ packing pouches of MRP ₹ 5.00 and on the other machine from 16.07.2014 to 31.07.2014 manufacturing/ packing pouches of MRP ₹ 2.80 per pouch. The appellant paid duty in advance for the machine packing pouches of MRP ₹ 5.00 per pouch for whole of the month but paid proportiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I find that in this case, the appellant paid duty for the pouches of MRP ₹ 5.00 per pouch as per Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines Rules, 2010. It is fact on record that on 15.07.2014 midnight, the machine was sealed. For the closure of the machine, the appellant filed claim for abatement which was rejected and the same has not been challenged by the appellant and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty for the machine manufacturing/ packing pouches having MRP of ₹ 5.00 each is a separate proceedings and duty has been paid separately for that and for the machine packing pouches having MRP of ₹ 2.80, the duty has been paid separately and separate refund claim has been filed by the appellant. Therefore, two claims of the appellant filed separately cannot be clubbed together in thes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
