https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266045 Prior intimation under Rule 10 of the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines Rules, 2012 was held to be substantially complied with where the assessee applied in advance, the sealing request was not acted upon, and the machines were later sealed on the same day on a fresh application. Because the packing machines remained sealed throughout the relevant period, abatement of duty for that period could not be denied on a rigid technical objection, and rejection of the refund claim was unsustainable. en-us Mon, 02 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Oct 2015 23:10:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266045 Prior intimation under Rule 10 of the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines Rules, 2012 was held to be substantially complied with where the assessee applied in advance, the sealing request was not acted upon, and the machines were later sealed on the same day on a fresh application. Because the packing machines remained sealed throughout the relevant period, abatement of duty for that period could not be denied on a rigid technical objection, and rejection of the refund claim was unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 02 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266045