9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (5) TMI 374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ana, Member (T)]. This Revenue Appeal is against the order in Appeal No. 275-CE/IND/92 dated 5-5-1992 passed by the Collector (Appeals) wherein the present Respondents appeal before Collector (Appeals) was allowed. 2. Heard ld. D.R. Shri S. Nunthuk who submits that the Revenue is aggrieved by the order in Appeal on the ground that Notification No.175/86 dated 1-3-1986 exempts duty upto the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. D.R. further submits that the order impugned clearly erred in allowing the Appeal of the present Respondents. 3. Heard Shri Tarun Shah, Chief Accounts Staff of the Respondents who submits that the issue is no longer res integra as the same has been decided by the Tribunal in the case of EL.P.EM. Industries v. CCE, 1989 (43) E.L.T. 599 (T). He further submits that Ld. Collector (Appeals) has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 4-4-1990 had upheld the view taken in the case of EL.P.EM. Industries (supra). We also note that the Department appeal against this decision of the Hon ble Tribunal was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 15-4-1996 as is reported in 1997 (92) E.L.T. A76. We also find that the entire subject matter was again considered in great detail by the Hon ble Tribunal in the case of Solar Packaging Pvt. Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
