https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768900 CESTAT Kolkata held that appellant was liable to pay duty under 4th Proviso to Rule 9 of Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines Rules, 2010, not Rule 8. Following precedents from Trimurti Fragrances and Arora Tobacco cases, the tribunal determined duty should be calculated based on actual production period. Appellant was entitled to abatement under Rule 10 for non-production period from 15.03.2012 to 31.03.2012. Enhanced duty rate effective 17.03.2012 was not applicable as production had ceased before this date. No demand was sustainable against appellant. Appeal disposed. en-us Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Apr 2025 13:12:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768900 CESTAT Kolkata held that appellant was liable to pay duty under 4th Proviso to Rule 9 of Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines Rules, 2010, not Rule 8. Following precedents from Trimurti Fragrances and Arora Tobacco cases, the tribunal determined duty should be calculated based on actual production period. Appellant was entitled to abatement under Rule 10 for non-production period from 15.03.2012 to 31.03.2012. Enhanced duty rate effective 17.03.2012 was not applicable as production had ceased before this date. No demand was sustainable against appellant. Appeal disposed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768900