2007 (10) TMI 542

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri K.S. Reddy, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - This appeal arises from Order-in-appeal No 15/04-C.E., dated 30th November, 2004 by which the Additional Commissioner's Order No. 13/2000, dated 29-9-2000 has been confirmed. The Original Authority rejected the rebate claim made by the appellants with regard to the closure of the unit for more than 36 days....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eposit any tax is not correct as the stenters were sealed for more than 36 days and in terms of Rule 96ZQ(g), they are not required to pay the duty for the period in question in advance. They rely on the ruling rendered in the case of Mahalakshmi Enterprises v. CCE - 2002 (140) E.L.T. 143 (Tri.-Del.), where in it has been clarified that when the stenters are closed for more than one month then in ....