9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (1) TMI 374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue filed these applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. Admittedly, there was a delay of 30 days in filing the appeals. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The contention of the Revenue is that the delay in filing the appeals was due to administrative procedure involved in filing the appeals. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani Ors. reported in 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not excisable. 5. Heard both sides. 6. In this case the issue is whether "the spent nickel catalyst emering as residue during the manufacture of Vanaspati is excisable or not". The Tribunal in the case of Kusum Products v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, reported in 1988 (33) E.L.T. 639 (Tribunal) held that spent nickle catalyst is not excisable goods. The appeal filed by the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
