9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by 25%. The eligibility of exemption Notification stands settled in favour of the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Ex. Stay No. 71297/2013 And Excise Appeal No. 71262/2013 - FO/76245/18 - Dated:- 13-6-2018 - Shri P.K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Shri Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical) Shri Arnab Chakraborty, Advocate for the Appellant (s) Sri S. Mukhopadhyay, Supdt. (A.R.) for the Respondent (s) ORDER Per Shri Bijay Kumar Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant has filed this appeal. 2. Briefly stated the issue involved in this case is regarding availability of Notification No. 33/99-CE dated-08/07/1999 and claiming the refund of Central Excise Duty paid on the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9) ELT 152 (Tri-Kolkata)] (2) Commr. of Central Excise, Shillong Vs. Dorria Tea Estate [2003 (156) ELT 999 (Tri.-Kolkata)] In case of Hindustan Coca Cola case it is held in para 5 which is extracted as under: ....5.After hearing the submissions made by both sides, we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong v. Dorria Tea Estate reported in 2003 (156) E.L.T. 999 (Tri. - Kolkata), has held that overall increase of 25% in installed capacity is the requirement of Notification Nos. 32/99 and 33/99, and there is no requirement that all the Sections of the manufacturing unit should be individually increased by 25%. Inasmuch as in the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration and facts are almost identical to previous case, Revenue cannot take a different stand. The relevant portion of the judgement in para 5 is reproduced as under: .5.In the instant case the same question arises for consideration and the facts are almost identical. We cannot permit the Revenue to take a different stand in this case. The earlier appeal involving identical issue was not pressed and was therefore, dismissed. The respondent having taken a conscious decision to accept the principles laid down in Pepsico India Holdings Ltd. (supra) cannot be permitted to take the opposite stand in this case. If we were to permit them to do so, the law will be in a state of confusion and will place the authorities as well as the assessees ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
