9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.R. for the Respondent(s) ORDER Per: Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein refund claim for Rs. 22,18,323/- has been rejected by the authorities below. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant being a manufacturer of Chewing Tobacco, paying duty under Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines Rules, 2010. During the period, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir abatement claim has been rejected the same is adjusted against the proportionate duty paid for the pouches having MRP of Rs. 2.80 per pouch during the period 16.07.2014 to 31.07.2014. The said refund claim stands rejected. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before me. 3. Heard both sides and considered the submissions. I find that in this case, the appellant paid duty for the pou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decision in the case of CST, UP Vs. Uraiya Chamber of Commerce, Allahabad - 1986 (25) ELT 867 (SC) to say that even if the procedure is not followed and excess duty has been paid, the appellant is entitled for refund. I find that the facts of the said case are not applicable to the facts of this case as, the payment of duty for the machine manufacturing/ packing pouches having MRP of Rs. 5.00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
