9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the insurance company, loss of stock was considered without considering the excise duty part. Therefore, the observation of the Commissioner that the appellants have received the duty part from the insurance company is not correct. Matter sent back to the Commissioner to re-consider the submissions of the appellants and pass appropriate orders. - E/466 of 2009-SM - - - Dated:- 19-7-2011 - M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lost in fire following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s.Mafatlal Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Ahmedabad reported in 2003 (154) ELT 543. It was also observed in the impugned order that the appellants have received the claim of duty part from the insurance company. Aggrieved against the said order, the appellants are before this Tribunal. 3. Shri K.M.Murlidharan, Advocate, learned Couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vs. CCE, Indore reported in 2007 (208) ELT 336 which has overruled the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s.Mafatlal Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Ahmedabad was not available. Therefore, reliance made by the adjudicating authority is incorrect and the adjudicating authority is bound by the decision of the larger bench of the Tribunal in the case of Grasim Industries vs. CCE, Indore. Hence, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the insurance company is not correct. Moreover, in the impugned order, the Commissioner has relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s.Mafatlal Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Ahmedabad which has been overruled by the decision of the larger bench of the Tribunal in the case of Grasim Industries vs. CCE, Indore cited supra. Therefore, matter needs re-examination on the part of the adjudicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
