9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the refund claim for the period 1st December, 2011 to 09th December, 2011. Accordingly this appeal is allowed allowing the refund - decided in favor of appellant. - APPEAL No. E/50837/2015-EX[SM] - A/70998/2018-SM[BR] - Dated:- 19-12-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri A. P. Mathur, Advocate, for Appellant Shri Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The issue in the present appeal relates to refund/abatement of duty under the provisions of Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008, (hereinafter referred to as PMPM Rules, 2008 for short). 2. The brief facts are that the appellant, registered wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rules, 2008. Being aggrieved, appellant preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide OIA dated 26/09/2012 allowed the abatement claim for the period 24/12/2011 to 31/12/2011 (8 days) observing that the factory remained closed from 24t/12/2011 to 31/01/2012, thus remaining close for a continuous period of 39 days, but was pleased to reject the refund claim for the period 01/12/2011 to 09/12/2011. Being aggrieved the Revenue preferred appeal before this Tribunal. 4. The appeal of Revenue being Appeal No. E/4163/2012-SM[BR] was decided by this Tribunal vide Final Order No. A/56629/2013 SM BR dated 11 th June, 2013, wherein following the earlier decisions of this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Lucknow Versus M/s KP Pan Products ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th September, 2012 have attained finality and hence no further refund claim is entertainable for the said period. 6. Being aggrieved appellant preferred appeal before ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order dated 29/04/2014 was pleased to reject the appeal upholding the order of the Assistant Commissioner. 7. Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal. The ld. counsel states that both the refund had been originally claimed by their application filed in January, 2012. Both the refund claims were rejected on the same ground. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) have apparently committed mistake of law by allowing refund claim for the period 24/12/2011 to 31/12/2011, but at the same time and early failed to gran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
