https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302403 The Tribunal held that the Assistant Commissioner exceeded jurisdiction by determining duty payable for a specific month, which was beyond the scope of Rule 6(2) of the Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules. The Tribunal quashed the part of the order related to determining duty for a particular month, ruling in favor of the appellant. This decision clarifies the Assistant Commissioner's authority under Rule 6(2) and emphasizes adherence to specified provisions when determining duty payable. en-us Fri, 16 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 May 2022 10:04:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302403 The Tribunal held that the Assistant Commissioner exceeded jurisdiction by determining duty payable for a specific month, which was beyond the scope of Rule 6(2) of the Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules. The Tribunal quashed the part of the order related to determining duty for a particular month, ruling in favor of the appellant. This decision clarifies the Assistant Commissioner's authority under Rule 6(2) and emphasizes adherence to specified provisions when determining duty payable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 16 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302403