2002 (1) TMI 925

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... filed these appeals against the common order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the respondents. Respondents made a request for adjournment. As we find that the issue is already covered by the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in 2001 (131) E.L.T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ctricity Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in 2001 (131) E.L.T. 535 (Guj.) also held that Coal ash (cinder) obtained by burning of coal in boiler as residue of burnt up coal and cannot be said to be excisable goods. In view of the above decision of the Hon ble High Court, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Central .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X