9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 873X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S.K. Gaule Heard both sides. 2. This appeal is arising consequent to Hon'ble Bombay High Court's order dated 14th September, 2010 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration afresh after taking into consideration the Note Sheet duly assigned by the Addl. Commissioner (Legal & TR), Central Excise, Bombay I. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,000/- under Rule 173Q under Central Excise Rules, 1944. The respondent challenged the same before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal and set aside the lower adjudicating authority's order. Aggrieved by the order, the Revenue filed an appeal before this Tribunal. The Tribunal vide Order No. C-II/1165/WZB/2001 dated 26.04.2001 dismissed the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent did not take permission for removing the goods to the job workers under Rule 57 of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. 5. The contention of the respondent is that the respondent's final products are not plastic containers but wet detergent tissue papers which are clearly shown as final products in the Modvat declaration by the respondent as required under Rule 57G. In the manufa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the expression 'not legal and correct' forms part of the said note sheet. Therefore, the appeal cannot be dismissed on this count. Accordingly I proceed to decide the case on its merits. The allegation of the department is that the respondent did not disclose the final products and permission was not obtained by the respondent for removing the goods to the job workers. From the perusal of para ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LT 567 (Tri. Mumbai) and Vijaya Seamless Containers Pvt. Ltd. (supra). I find that it is no ones case that input in the case sent for job work were not received back. It is also no ones case that the final product were not cleared on payment of duty. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue. Accordingly, the Commissioner (Appeals) order is upheld and the appeal i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
