9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant Shri Cherian Punnoose, Advocate for the respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 17/11/2003 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) wherein the Commissioner(Appeals) has passed a common order disposing of two appeals of assessee and one appeal of Department. The Commissioner(Appeals) by the impugned order has dismissed the Department s ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one contradicting the other. There is a Department appeal as well as two appeals filed by the assessee before the Commissioner(Appeals) who disposed of all the three appeals by the impugned order. Against which the Department has filed the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. The learned AR submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable as the same has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions in support of his submission that Ferric Chloride waste i.e. Ferric Chloride solution is not an excisable item as it does not fulfil the preconditions as prescribed in the definition in Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He further submitted that for the subsequent period with regard to the same issue, the Commissioner(Appeals) vide order dt. 03/02/2017 has allowed 10 appeals of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 w.e.f. 10/05/2008. He also submitted that the decisions of the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court have also been followed by the Tribunal in the case of Magnum Ventures Vs. CCE, Ghaziabad [(2014) 51 taxmann.com 68 (New Delhi CESTAT)]. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties, we are of the view that the issue is squarely covered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
