9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Order-in-Appeal No. 270/2003-C.E., dated 12-9-2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Coimbatore. 2. Shri A.J.K. Nambiar, learned Advocate appeared for the appellants and Shri K.S. Reddy, learned JDR appeared for the Revenue. 3. The issue involved is whether package tea bearing a brand name manufactured prior to 2-6-98 but removed from the factory after 2-6-1998 is liabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... following decisions: (a) Wallace Flour Mills - 1989 (44) E.L.T. 598 (S.C.). (b) Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. - 1996 (83) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). (c) Ganesh Extrusion Artistries v. CCE - 1993 (66) E.L.T. 639 (Tri.). 5. We do not agree with the contention of the learned Advocate. Prior to 2-6-98, the tariff entry under 0902.00 was "Tea including tea waste", the rate of duty was nil. This indicate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase. Only when the goods are manufactured prior to levy but cleared thereafter, they are not liable to excise duty. In the present case, we cannot say that the impugned goods did not attract levy prior to 2-6-98. They attracted levy but the rate of duty was nil. Only when the goods are manufactured prior to the levy of duty, no excise duty is payable when they are cleared after the levy. That is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
