https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178247 Use of the same packing machine for pouches bearing a different retail sale price during a month did not justify treating the machine as two packing machines under the first proviso to Rule 8 of the Pan Masala Packing Machine (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision on the same point and noted that both sides accepted the controversy had already been decided in favour of the assessee. The demand had proceeded on the footing that commencement of manufacture of a new retail sale price on an existing machine increased the number of operating packing machines for that month. The demand, interest and penalty were therefore not sustainable. en-us Fri, 17 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Feb 2016 10:22:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178247 Use of the same packing machine for pouches bearing a different retail sale price during a month did not justify treating the machine as two packing machines under the first proviso to Rule 8 of the Pan Masala Packing Machine (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision on the same point and noted that both sides accepted the controversy had already been decided in favour of the assessee. The demand had proceeded on the footing that commencement of manufacture of a new retail sale price on an existing machine increased the number of operating packing machines for that month. The demand, interest and penalty were therefore not sustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 17 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178247