https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388581 The appellate tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the factory closure period entitled them to abatement for both April and May 2015 under the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines Rules, 2010. The tribunal criticized the Commissioner (Appeals) for artificially bifurcating the closure period and emphasized that procedural lapses should not negate abatement entitlement. The tribunal directed the original authority to calculate the interest payable by the appellant for the procedural lapse period. The Commissioner's decision was set aside, emphasizing adherence to procedural requirements while ensuring rightful benefits are not denied. en-us Wed, 18 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Nov 2019 10:58:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388581 The appellate tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the factory closure period entitled them to abatement for both April and May 2015 under the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines Rules, 2010. The tribunal criticized the Commissioner (Appeals) for artificially bifurcating the closure period and emphasized that procedural lapses should not negate abatement entitlement. The tribunal directed the original authority to calculate the interest payable by the appellant for the procedural lapse period. The Commissioner's decision was set aside, emphasizing adherence to procedural requirements while ensuring rightful benefits are not denied. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 18 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388581