9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 830X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Pradeep Kumar Dubey (Supdt) AR, for Appellant Shri Chandra Shekhar Sharma (AGM) Rep., for Respondent Per: Ashok Jindal The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order, wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the abatement claim of duty paid by the respondent during the period of closure of the factory. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent is engaged in manufact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary their machines remained close for only 13 days, therefore, they are not entitled for abatement of duty. In terms of proviso to Rule 9 and Rule 10 of the said Rules. In this set of facts the proceedings were initiated to deny the claim of abatement, the same was denied but the learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the abatement claim. Against the said order the Revenue is before us. 3. Heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt since it had deposited excise duty for the entire month of December, 2011. Since only 11 days were falling in the continuous period of closure beginning from 21.12.2011 to 20.02.2012 the respondent claimed for abatement of 11 days for the month of December, 2011. This would not mean that closure was for less than 15 days. The period of 15 days may fall within a month or more that one month, pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
