9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent. [Order]. The appellants filed this appeal against the demand of duty of Rs. 40,000/- and penalty of equal amount along with interest for the period 16-12-1998 to 31-12-1998. The Commissioner of Central Excise held that w.e.f. 1-1-1999, the appellants were not covered under the definition of Independent processors, hence they are not liable to pay duty under the Compounded Levy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i.-Chen.) set aside the order following the decision of the Hon ble Madras High Court. 3. The learned DR relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Gujarat v. Roop Textiles Mills Ltd. reported in 2007 (213) E.L.T. 486 (S.C.) wherein the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court on the identical issue was set side and matter remanded back to the Hon ble High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned DR that this issue was not taken before the lower authorities is not sustainable as the issue is related to question of law and can be taken before the Appellate authority. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Beauty Dyers (supra), the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief. It is made clear that this or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
