TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 1190
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xcise Department is engaged in the manufacture of Gutkha and were paying duty under the PMPM Rules, 2008. The factory of the appellant remained close from 03/07/2011 to 09/12/2011. Thereafter, it started production from 10th December, 2011 and continued till 23/12/2011. Thereafter, the factory again remained closed from 24th December, 2011 to 31st January, 2012. The appellant applied refund claim for Rs. 6,85,483/- for the period 1st December, 2011 to 09th December, 2011, (9 days) and 24th December, 2011 to 31st December, 2011 (8 days) totalling 17 days. Their unit was operational during the month of December for the balance 14 days and as per Notification No. 42/2008 - PMPM Rules, 2008 the duty calculated on proportional basis comes to Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2/2011, wherein it was held that - "so long as the days of closure are continuous, even if the days fall in different calendar months, it will constitute one continuous period and the abatement under Rule 10 is to be determined accordingly." Following the ruling in the case of M/s KP Pan Products (P) Ltd. (supra). This Tribunal dismiss the appeal of Revenue holding that the continuous period of 15 days or more need not be in one calendar year month and can spread over or spillover more than one calendar month. 5. In view of the ruling in the case of M/s KP Pan Products (P) Ltd. of this Tribunal, and also the Final Order dated 11/06/2013, in their own case, the appellant again filed refund claim for Rs. 3,63,000/- + Rs. 3,22,581/- for the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fact that the factory had remained closed for more than 15 days from the month of September to 30/11/2011. Thus, in view of the law explained by this Tribunal in the case of M/s KP Pan Products (P) Ltd. and subsequently followed in appellant's own case, the refund for this period was also admissible. Further under the facts and circumstances, the refund claim of the appellant for the period 1st December, 2011 to 09th December, 2011 is also not time barred. Accordingly the ld. counsel prays for allowing the appeal with consequential benefits. 8. The ld. A. R. for Revenue, who relied on the impugned order. 9. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the rejection of the refund claim of Rs. 3,63,000/- for the period 1st Dece....