TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 934
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 another machine on 16/04/2011 and commenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dication, 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 abatement is against law. Learned AIR Shri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....batement 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 was neither installed nor operated during the....