2008 (11) TMI 532

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ri P.G. Chacko, A.K. Srivastava, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri M.H. Patil, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri S.S. Katiyar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we find that the ld. Commissioner has not given the benefit of Rule 16(2) of the Central Excise Rules 2002 to the appellants, on the ground that th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... efining, remaking, reconditioning, etc. In other words, the ld. Commissioner has applied the rule of ejusdem generis. According to the appellants, this interpretation is not correct, in support of which they have cited the Tribunal s decision in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad v. TapsheeI Enterprises, 2007 (216) E.L.T. 284 (Tri.-Ahmd.), wherein Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was considered a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is rather in favour of the appellant. We also note that the appellant s case is supported by the decision cited by Counsel. 4. After considering the submissions, prima facie, we find that the appellants have made out a case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the duty and penalty amounts. Ordered accordingly. (Dictated in Court) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Central Excis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X