9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TMI 606 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], where it was held that if factory remains closed for a period of 15 days or more, after payment of duty by 5th of April, for the subsequent month, assessee adjusted the amount of abatement under Rule 10 and paid the balance, it was also held that in a series of judicial pronouncements, a consistent approach has been taken to the effect that in case of such adjustment of duty which is mandatorily required to be abated, Revenue cannot insist upon recovery of amount so adjusted. The appellant shall also be entitled to refund of the amount of interest adjusted by giving refund of the abatement amount - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/50056/2015-EX[SM], E/51872/2015-EX[SM] - FINAL ORDER NO. 71 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suo-motu adjustment and issued Show Cause Notice which was adjudicated vide OIO dated 27/11/2013, and it was held that the appellant could not take suo-motu abatement and the same required sanction of the Jurisdictional Authority and the demand of ₹ 10,87,500/-, was raised. 3. In the appeal of M/s Simla Special Flavour, the brief facts of the case are that the appellant were engaged in manufacture and clearance of Gutkha, paying duty under PMPM Rules, 2008. The admitted facts are that they did not produce notified goods for continuous of 15 days in the month of March, 2011 and consequently they paid duty of ₹ 38,70,970/- calculated on pro-rata basis for number of days on which the installed pouch packing machines where in op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt so adjusted. Ld. Counsel also placed reliance on the ruling of Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Hindustan Industrial Area Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad reported at 2013 (293) E.L.T. 191 (Allahabad). Further, the said ruling in case of M/s Thakkar Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. Others has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and also been followed in subsequent ruling in the case of M/s Zest Packers Pvt. Ltd. Others Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-II reported at 2015-TIOL-1866-CESTAT-AHM, wherein it has also been held that claim of abatement under Rule 10 had no relation to determination of Annual Capacity of Production under Rule 6(2) of the Chewing Tobacco Unmanufactured ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
