2013 (9) TMI 697

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....halla, J. The revenue lays challenge to order dated 09.08.2012 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate, New Delhi, dismissing its appeal. Counsel for the appellant submits that duty liability is determined for each month separately. The continuous period of non-production of goods, that entitles an assessee to claim refund on account of abatement of duty, is to be reckoned for eac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... hesitation in holding that order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any error of law, much less, in terms of the question of law, framed by the revenue, which reads as follows:- "Whether the Tribunal is justified in allowing the abatement of duty of five days, i.e., 01-04-2011 to 05-04- 2011 on the consideration of the fact that though the duty liability is determined for each month sep....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent of excise duty of Rs.8,33,333/- for the first five days of April from 1.4.2011 to 5.4.2011 during which period, machines remained sealed. The department rejected the application, by holding that 15 days' continuous period of nonproduction, in a calendar month alone, entitles an assessee to abatement. The respondent filed an appeal which was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). An appeal file....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the abatement cannot be faulted. In view of the discussion above, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine." Admittedly, there was no production for a period of 36 days, i.e., from 01.4.2011 to 5.4.2011 including from 1.4.2011 to 5.4.2011. Reference by counsel for the appellant to Rules 7 and 9 of the Rules in suppo....