2016 (11) TMI 934

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....umar, Asst. Commissioner(AR) for the respondent. [Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.,] The appellants are manufacturers of pan masala containing tobacco commonly known as Gutkha. They started production of Gutkha under compounded levy scheme w.e.f. 01/04/2011 with one machine and an amount of Rs. 12,50,000/- was paid as duty under the compounded levy scheme. Subsequently the appellant installed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uty) Rules, 2008 (PMPM Rules). After adjudication, the original authority denied abatement claim which was upheld by the Commissioner(Appeals). Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel Shri Y.S. Sreenivasa Reddy submitted that the appellant did not produce goods during the period from 01/04/2011 to 15/04/2011 using the second machine and that therefore the denial of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt case, the authority below has denied the abatement stating that the relevant provision is not applicable to the appellant since during the period prior to 16/04/2011, the appellant had not installed the machines in the factory. It is not disputed that the appellant paid whole duty of Rs. 12,25,000/- for the whole month against the second machine. It is also not disputed that the second machine ....