2019 (11) TMI 830

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ER Nobody appeared for the appellant. Accordingly, I have heard the Learned AR and gone through the impugned order. 2. It is seen that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of tobacco products and was liable to discharge duty liability in terms of Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010. Their factory remaine....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the duty for the period of closure till 15.05.2015 and claimed abatement himself. 5. In the above background, the Asst. Commissioner passed an order considering that the factory was closed for a continuous period of 28 days and as such the appellant was entitled to the abatement for the month of April 2015, and granted the abatement for Rs. 46,10,233/-. The said order of Asst. Commissioner was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., he set aside the order of Asst. Commissioner and allowed the Revenue's appeal. Hence the present appeal by the assessee. 6. I find that there is no dispute about the fact that the factory was continuously closed from 18.04.2015 to 15.05.2015. In such a scenarios, the assessee was entitled to the abatement of duty for the month of April 2015 as also May 2015 depending upon the closure period. T....