9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ms. L. Maithali, Adv. for the Appellant. Mr. N. Jagadish, A.R. for the Respondent. ORDER Per : ARCHANA WADHWA Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cigarettes. They are also undertaking cutting of tobacco leaves in their factory which is further being used in the manufacture of cigarettes. 2. In terms of Notification No. 52/02, intermediate goods manufactured in the factory and furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e initiated against them culminating in the present impugned order passed by the adjudicating authority confirming demand and imposing penalties. We find that an identical issue came up before the Tribunal in the appellants own case vide its Final Order No. 22358-22361/2014 dated 3/12/2014, the Tribunal observed as Under:- 9. In the above case it has been clearly observed that tobacco refuse can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of the Tribunal in the case of Golden Tobacco Ltd. is tobacco refuse is not a final product. The Tribunal also while rendering the decision in the case of Golden Tobacco Ltd. had relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Rallis India Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2009 (233) E.L.T. 301 (Bom.)] where a similar view was taken. Thereafter several decisions have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in these cases. In view of the above discussion, the demands against the appellants, interest thereon and penalties imposed cannot be sustained. In the result all the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals filed by the appellants are allowed with consequential relief if any to the appellants. Accordingly appeals were allowed. 4. Learned A.R. fairly agrees that the said decision of the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
