https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339441 The appellant's appeal against the denial of a refund of excise duty paid was successful. The appellant purchased machines for production but only commenced operations after the duty payment period. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, citing a precedent that a factory not in production should not pay duty for the entire month. Consequently, the appellant was entitled to a refund for the duty paid from 01.01.2009 to 11.01.2009. The decision emphasized the necessity of matching duty payments with actual production timelines and the relevance of legal precedents in refund claims related to excise duty payments. en-us Fri, 23 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Feb 2017 22:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339441 The appellant's appeal against the denial of a refund of excise duty paid was successful. The appellant purchased machines for production but only commenced operations after the duty payment period. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, citing a precedent that a factory not in production should not pay duty for the entire month. Consequently, the appellant was entitled to a refund for the duty paid from 01.01.2009 to 11.01.2009. The decision emphasized the necessity of matching duty payments with actual production timelines and the relevance of legal precedents in refund claims related to excise duty payments. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 23 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339441