9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the details - Appeal No. E/2415/2005-SM(BR) - Final Order No. 949/2007-SM(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 26-4-2007 - [Order per] - The relevant facts of the case, in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Aerated Water classifiable under sub-heading 22.01 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Three show cause notices it were issued alleging that on scrutiny of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... below that bottle burst while handling the same in store room is beyond the scope of the show cause notice. He also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Pepsico India Holdings Pvt Ltd v CCE Meerut-II reported in 2006 (201) E.L.T 69 (Tri) and in the case of Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills v CC CE, Allahabad reported in 2007 (208) E.L.T. 234 (Tri-Del.). 3 Learned Authorised R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... F. No. ID/3/70-CX8, dated 8-9-71, the Board had advised adjustment of breakage within 0.5%. Learned representative drew the attention of the Bench the statement of losses during the material period is 0.5%, which is within the permissible limit as per board circular. On perusal of the adjudication order, it appears that the adjudicating authority did not dispute the contention of the appellant. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in regard to their units at Chennai, U.P. There is no reason for treating the present claim differently. The appeal is, therefore, allowed after setting aside the impugned order. The appellant shall be entitled to consequential relief". 6. In the present case, it is revealed from the record that demand of duty on the burst bottles were set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Deputy C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
