https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350822 Under the Pan Masala Packing Machine scheme, duty liability did not arise for the period during which the second machine remained sealed and non-operational. The article states that the factory could not be treated as wholly closed merely because one machine continued working, and therefore the prorata refund mechanism under Rule 10 was inapplicable where the duty itself was not chargeable for the sealed period. The proper computation was confined to the actual working period of the machine, with interest to be recalculated accordingly, and any excess duty paid was to be adjusted by consequential relief. en-us Wed, 11 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Nov 2017 04:38:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350822 Under the Pan Masala Packing Machine scheme, duty liability did not arise for the period during which the second machine remained sealed and non-operational. The article states that the factory could not be treated as wholly closed merely because one machine continued working, and therefore the prorata refund mechanism under Rule 10 was inapplicable where the duty itself was not chargeable for the sealed period. The proper computation was confined to the actual working period of the machine, with interest to be recalculated accordingly, and any excess duty paid was to be adjusted by consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 11 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350822