https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348613 The Commissioner (Appeals) justified the rejection of refund claims by the appellant based on non-compliance with the provisions of the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines Rules, 2010, specifically Rule 6(5). The decision was supported by discrepancies in reports regarding the sealing of machines by the Superintendent of Central Excise, leading to the dismissal of the appellant's arguments. The judgment focused on meticulous examination of compliance with statutory rules, ultimately upholding the rejection of the appeals. en-us Thu, 14 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 Sep 2017 07:53:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348613 The Commissioner (Appeals) justified the rejection of refund claims by the appellant based on non-compliance with the provisions of the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines Rules, 2010, specifically Rule 6(5). The decision was supported by discrepancies in reports regarding the sealing of machines by the Superintendent of Central Excise, leading to the dismissal of the appellant's arguments. The judgment focused on meticulous examination of compliance with statutory rules, ultimately upholding the rejection of the appeals. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 14 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348613