9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... admissible. We find that contradictory stands were taken in the said show cause notice by the Revenue. Therefore, the show cause notice is not sustainable. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief - E/2294/2009-EX[DB] - Final Order No. 70627/2016 - Dated:- 1-8-2016 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) and Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri K.K. Anand, Ms. Surabhi Sinha Shri Kumar Vikram, all Advocates for the Appellant (s) Shri Rajeev Ranjan Jt. Commissioner, (A.R.) for the Department ORDER The present appeal is arising out of the Order-in-Original No.20/COMM/NOIDA/2009 dated 11.05.2009 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Custom, Noida. 2. The brief facts of the case are that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the jurisdiction of Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Hon'ble High Court of Jammu Kashmir through its Interim Order dated 31.12.2007, allowed the unit manufacturing similar product in the jurisdiction of said Hon'ble High Court to pay duty. Therefore, they were also paying duty and there is nothing wrong in paying duty on laminates and since the goods on which amount under Rule 6(3)(b) of said Rules is demanded are duty paid goods, the demand is unsustainable. 4. The Original Authority decided the said show cause notice through the impugned Order-in-Original dated 11.05.2009, wherein the Original Authority has held that by observing that the appellants were manufacturing the other finished products apart from exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further explained that for the manufacture of Pouches coming into existence of Laminates, is a must. Therefore, first Laminates are manufactured and then Laminates are converted into Pouches. Therefore, at no point of time, the exempted and dutiable goods are manufactured in two streams. He has also relied on case Laws in the cases of Markwell Paper Plast Pvt, Ltd, Vs, Commissioner of Cus. C. Ex., Noida reported at 2012(285) E.L.T. 76 (Tri.- Del.) and Paper Products Ltd. Vs, CCE, Mumbai-III , reported at 2015(304) E.L.T. 145 (Tri. Mumbai), and further submitted that the above case law in the case of Paper Products Ltd. is affirmed by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay as reported at 2015 (320) E.L.T. A 200 (Bom.). 7. The Ld. D.R. for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
