9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s decided the same issue in favour of the appellant by holding that the cigarette waste paper and aluminium foil are not subject to excise duty and the department has not filed appeal against the same. Moreover in all the judgments cited by the learned counsel supra, the issue has been squarely decided in favour of the appellant. Learned A.R. could not controvert the submission of the appellant by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cigarettes classifiable under Chapter Heading 2403 of CETH 1985. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant calling upon them to show-cause as to why duty cannot be demanded on paper waste and aluminium waste generated during the making and packing of cigarettes classified under CETH 4702.90 and CETA 7602.90 respectively and also demanded central excise duty of ₹ 1,08,135/- on various w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) and hence the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is untenable in law as there are serious infirmities in the impugned order and all the grounds raised by the appellant have not been considered by the learned Commissioner and the impugned order is non-speaking and has been passed without application of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned counsel has relied upon the following case laws:- 1. CCE Vs ITC Ltd [2008(221) ELT 543(Tri-Kol)] 2. CCE Vs ITC Ltd [ F.O. No. 20625/14 dated 28.4.14] 3. International Tobacco Co. Ltd Vs CCE [2004(165) ELT 314(Tri-Del)] 4. CCE Vs Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd [2006(203) ELT 3 (SC)] 5. Balrumpur Chini Mills Ltd Vs UOI [2014(300) ELT 372(All)] 6. UOI Vs DSCL Sugar Ltd [2015(322) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod has decided the same issue in favour of the appellant by holding that the cigarette waste paper and aluminium foil are not subject to excise duty and the department has not filed appeal against the same. Moreover in all the judgments cited by the learned counsel supra, the issue has been squarely decided in favour of the appellant. Learned A.R. could not controvert the submission of the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
