9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nikar. Adv for the respondent ORDER Per: Mrs. Archana Wadhwa 1. Being aggrieved with a part of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, the Revenue has filed the present appeal. 2. After hearing both the parties, represented by ld. AR Shri S.K. Bansal for the appellant and Shri H.V. Ghirnikar ld. Advocate by the respondent, we find that the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, raised vide the show cause notices dated 28/10/2015 as also the demand of Rs. 1.32 crores approximately raised vide show cause notices dated 2/2/2016, by relying upon various precedent decisions to the effect that the provisions of Rule 6(3) would not be applicable in respect of emerged waste materials/by products. 4. The Revenue is not aggrieved by the above proposition arrived at by the Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both the show cause notices. Ld. Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that the above observation made by the Commissioner is factually incorrect in as much as a part of the demand was admittedly for the period post 1/3/2015. However, he argues on merits and submits that even for the period after 1/3/2015, the provisions of Rule 6(3) cannot be invoked in as much as the husk, dry husk, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
