2017 (9) TMI 2006

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Tangri, Advocate, For the Respondent : Shri S.K. Bansal, DR ORDER PER JUSTICE (DR.) SATISH CHANDRA: The present appeal is filed against the Order-in-Original No. 32/15-16 dated 23.10.2015. The period of dispute is November 2011 to March 2012. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacturing of chewing tobacco bearing brand name "Classic Natraj" ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of refund. First the appellant will have to deposit the duty and then can claim the refund. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 4. With the above background, we have heard Shri Rahul Tangri, Advocate for the appellant and Shri S.K. Bansal, DR for the respondent. 5. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that in the case of Trimurti Fr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppellant should have, first, paid the entire duty for the month of March by the due date, that is, by 5th of the month and only, thereafter, should have claimed the rebate. The duty demand of Rs. 32,25,805/- has been confirmed on this basis which represents the duty for the period from 1st March to 16th March. However, we find that this issue stands settled in favour of the appellant by the judgme....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Coimbatore reported in 2009 (246) E.L.T. 255 (Tri. - Chennai) and also in the appellant's own case for the previous period decided by this Tribunal's Final Order Nos. 50223-50232/2015, dated 21-1-2015. In view of this the duty demand of Rs. 32,25,805/- would not be sustainable. However, since the due date for payment of duty was 5th of the month and the appellant paid the....