https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270184 The Tribunal interpreted the term "continuous period of 15 days" in Rule 10 of the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines Rules, 2010, allowing the appellant's abatement claim for the factory closure period. The Commissioner (Appeals) initially denied the abatement, but the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the closure duration could span across months for abatement eligibility. The Tribunal overturned the Commissioner's decision, granting the appellant the abatement for the specified period, emphasizing the correct application of the law in determining the continuous closure period for abatement. en-us Wed, 29 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 31 Dec 2015 14:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270184 The Tribunal interpreted the term "continuous period of 15 days" in Rule 10 of the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines Rules, 2010, allowing the appellant's abatement claim for the factory closure period. The Commissioner (Appeals) initially denied the abatement, but the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the closure duration could span across months for abatement eligibility. The Tribunal overturned the Commissioner's decision, granting the appellant the abatement for the specified period, emphasizing the correct application of the law in determining the continuous closure period for abatement. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 29 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270184