9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pril, 2013 and further started production on additional two machines of same RSP of ₹ 1/- w.e.f. 17th April, 2013 - Accordingly, in terms of proviso 4 to Rule 9 of the Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination & Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 read with Section 3A of the Act, the duty for the month of April, 2013 is payable on pro rata basis for the number of days the machines were in operation. Appellant is entitled to refund - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 52292/2015 - A/71704/2018-SM[BR] - Dated:- 26-7-2018 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) For the Appellant: Sh. Jatin Mahajan, Adv. For the Respondent: Sh. Pawan Kr. Singh, DR ORDER PER ANIL CHOUDHARY: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttention to proviso 4 to Rule 9 of the Pan Masala Machines (Capacity Determination Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 which reads as under: Provided also that in case a manufacturer permanently discontinues manufacturing of goods of existing retail sale price or commences manufacturing of goods of a new retail sale price during the month, the monthly duty payable shall be recalculated pro-rata on the basis of the total number of days in that month and the number of days remaining in that month counting from the date of such discontinuation or commencement and the duty liability for the month shall not be discharged unless the differential duty is paid by the 5th day of the following month, and in case the amount of duty so recalculated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here was no manufacture of new RSP of Re.1/- at all during this period. He further submitted that, duty amounting to ₹ 56,00,000/- for the month of April, 2013 was paid under protest, on the verbal direction of the Department. Finally, the learned counsel submitted that there is no justification in the impugned order to grant the refund on only two machines (not operative for first 11 days) and decline on two Machines which were not in operation for 16 days in the month of April, 2013. Therefore, prayed for refund of balance ₹ 10,26,666/-, for which appellant is entitled (Rs.20,53,332/- minus ₹ 10,26,666/-) (already granted) or ₹ 10,26,666/-. 4. On the other hand, learned DR for the Revenue, reiterated the finding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
