Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2016 (7) TMI 556

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sessee is a manufacturer of Gutka Falling under Chapter 24.They filed a refund claim for Rs. 4,62,90,323/- claiming abatement in terms of notification No. 30/2008-CENT dated 1/07/2008 claiming that the factory was closed continuously for 16 days from 20.10.2008 to 04.11.2008. The refund was sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner. Revenue filed an appeal against this refund, considering it as improper and the Commissioner (Appeals) modified the refund order and restricted the refund to the extent of Rs. 30,24,194/-. The Revenue is in appeal before us against the order dated 4/2/2010 contending that the appellant assessee is not entitled to any refund. Separately proceedings were initiated by the Commissioner to issue of show cause notice f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eeds to be filed, at least, 7 days prior to the commencement of the said period. This acquires significance since this is a condition precedent for claiming refund of the duty paid in advance, proportionate to the closure period. In the facts of the present case, the appellant assessee's intimation for closure of the factory during the period 20/10/2008 to 4/11/2008 (16 days) was filed with the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Range Superintendent on 14/10/2008. The requirement of 7 days prior to notice under the Rule 10 is not satisfied prior to the commencement of the closure period falling short by a day. The Original Authority ignored this requirement and sanctioned full refund of the duty. The commissioner (Appeals) in his order d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sue has been considered by this Tribunal in the decision cited by the Ld. Advocate. In the above decision, the Tribunal has held as follows:- "The only objection of the department is that the intimation for closure was not given three working days prior to commencement of the period of closure. We are of the view that when the purpose of giving prior intimation three working days prior to commencement of closure, is that the officers have enough time to seal the machines in the manner as prescribed in this rule, and this purpose has been achieved, as the sealing of the machines in the manner prescribed was done on 14-1-2013 in pursuance of the orders given by the Assistant Commissioner on 11-1-2013, the Conditions of the intimation of clo....