9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has also specifically brought out any evidence to show that on 18.7.2012 the appellant had manufactured Gutka by using /utilising machines installed in the factory. Since, it is an admitted fact on record that from 18.7.2012, there was no manufacturing activity undertaken in the factory of the appellant, the duty liability in respect of 19.7.2012 should not be considered for confirmation - Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 19.7.2012, has intimated the department regarding surrender of registration certificate issued on its behalf by the Department. Consequent upon surrender of such registration certificate, all the packing machines, which were in operation, were sealed by the Department on 19.7.2012. The appellant had deposited the duty amounting to ₹ 3,04,00,000/- for the whole of the month of July 2012 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y amount of ₹ 9,80,645/- in respect of non-operation of the machines on 19.7.2012. However, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider the prayer of the appellant and confirmed the adjudication order dated 17.8.2012 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur. Being aggrieved, with the impugned order, the appellant has filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 2. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 3. On the other hand, ld. DR appearing for the respondent reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order and further submits that Rule 16 ibid clearly mandates that the date of intimation regarding surrender of registration certificate should be considered as the relevant date for payment of duty in respect of machines installed for manufacture of Gutka products. 4. Heard both side ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... calculation of the duty demand. Since, it is an admitted fact on record that from 18.7.2012, there was no manufacturing activity undertaken in the factory of the appellant, the duty liability in respect of 19.7.2012 should not be considered for confirmation. Therefore, the appellant should be entitled for the refund in respect of Central Excise duty paid for 19.7.2012. 6. In view of the above, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
