9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent ORDER Per Bench The respondents are manufacturers of tyres, tubes and other rubber products. Compound rubber was one of the intermediate products used by the respondent/assessee in their manufacture of final products. During the material period, ADV tyres i.e. tyres for animal-drawn vehicles were not dutiable and consequently intermediate products such as compound rubber used in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Aggrieved by the order of Commissioner (Appeals), the respondents went in appeal before the Tribunal and vide Final Order No.572/204 dated 12.7.2004, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority with a direction for quantification of the duty liability for the said period. The Tribunal also directed to allow MODVAT credit on the inputs use ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Bench that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of Ralson (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh as reported in 2015 (319) ELT 234 (SC) has held that the exemption is available to compound rubber during the interim period and thus the demand itself has now become unsustainable. 3. Against this, the learned AR Shri S. Govindarajan submitted that in the second round of liti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was held that for the interim period, the compound rubber was not exigible to duty. When the issue of levy of duty itself is now settled in favour of the respondent / assessee, we find no ground to interfere with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals). 5. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the appeals filed by the depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
