https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260505 The appellant, a gutkha manufacturer, ceased operations due to a state government ban, leading to a refund claim for duty paid in advance. The Assistant Commissioner initially sanctioned the refund under Rule 16 of Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules for pro-rata duty calculation during the closure period. The Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the refund order, but the appellant's clear communication and compliance with surrendering registrations supported the refund under Rule 16. The court found Rule 16 applicable, set aside the impugned order, and allowed the appeal with consequential relief, emphasizing the correctness of the refund. en-us Tue, 24 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Feb 2016 10:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260505 The appellant, a gutkha manufacturer, ceased operations due to a state government ban, leading to a refund claim for duty paid in advance. The Assistant Commissioner initially sanctioned the refund under Rule 16 of Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules for pro-rata duty calculation during the closure period. The Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the refund order, but the appellant's clear communication and compliance with surrendering registrations supported the refund under Rule 16. The court found Rule 16 applicable, set aside the impugned order, and allowed the appeal with consequential relief, emphasizing the correctness of the refund. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 24 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260505