9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les, 2010 (for short, referred to as the "CTD Rules"). During the relevant period, the appellant was operating two machines i.e. Machine No. 25 with RSP of 3 per pouch and Machine No. 23, with RSP of 5 per piece. During the month of October'2012, the said machines were not in operation and accordingly, the same were sealed and subsequently, un-sealed by the appellant, under physical supervision of the jurisdictional Central Excise officers. During the period, when the machines were in operation, the appellant had computed the duty liability and accordingly, deposited an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/-. However, the department insisted that the appellant should deposit the entire duty in advance and accordingly, the appellant had deposited Rs. 62 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, to the extent it disallowed the refund of Rs. 22,32,258/-, the appellant has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The ld. Consultant appearing for the appellant submitted that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has mis-interpreted the 4th Proviso to Rule 9 inasmuch as the word "permanently" was interpreted to hold that either the manufacturing activity is discontinued or the product will never be manufactured in future. He has relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of S.A. Freshners Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, New Delhi - 2018-TIOL-1026-CESTAT-DEL. to state that the benefit of 4th Proviso to Rule 9 ibid is applicable, in cases where the production of goods of new RSP, which has not been earlier manufactured during the month ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sealed the machine as per the request made by the appellant. Thus, it cannot be said that the appellant is not entitled for the refund/abatement under 4th Proviso to Rule 9 of the CTD Rules. In context with the expression "new retail sale price", this Tribunal in the case of SA Freshners Pvt. Ltd. (supra), has held that the benefit of the fourth proviso to Rule 9 is applicable, in cases, where the production of goods of a new RSP, which has not been earlier manufactured during the month, is commenced by the manufacturer, even if the goods bearing such RSP were being manufactured in the earlier months. 6. In view of the above discussion and analysis, I do not find any merits in the impugned order, so far as it denied the refund benefit of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
