https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756890 The CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled in favor of the appellant regarding service tax liability during machine closure periods. The Revenue contended that the appellant must first pay excise duty for the entire period before claiming abatement for the closure period. The Tribunal held that under Rule 10 of the Pan Masala Packaging Machine Rules, 2008, appellants can claim abatement without prior duty payment for machine closure periods. Citing precedent from P.M. Products case, the Tribunal determined full duty cannot be demanded during non-operational periods. The demand was deemed unsustainable, impugned orders were set aside, and the appeal was allowed. en-us Thu, 08 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Aug 2024 18:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756890 The CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled in favor of the appellant regarding service tax liability during machine closure periods. The Revenue contended that the appellant must first pay excise duty for the entire period before claiming abatement for the closure period. The Tribunal held that under Rule 10 of the Pan Masala Packaging Machine Rules, 2008, appellants can claim abatement without prior duty payment for machine closure periods. Citing precedent from P.M. Products case, the Tribunal determined full duty cannot be demanded during non-operational periods. The demand was deemed unsustainable, impugned orders were set aside, and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 08 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756890