9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revenue challenge the orders impugned which had vacated the demands for cess on package tea cleared during the period 2-6-1998 to 31-10-1999. The original authority had held that Notification No. 1086(E) dated 11-11-1999 had clarified that cess was not payable a second time if the same tea had suffered cess at an earlier stage (in another form). He held that as the Notification did not have retros ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pective and the Commissioner had not given his reading of the notification while vacating the orders of the original authority. 4. The respondents rely on the decision of the Tribunal in Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd., v. CCE, Trichy reported in 2005 (187) E.L.T. 247 (Tri-Chen.). In the above decision, the Tribunal held that cess on tea was a one time levy at the stage of production from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as 'instant tea', it does not cease to be known commercially as 'tea'. Whether tea is consumed as hot beverage or a cold beverage depending upon one's liking and taste, it does not make any difference in deciding whether it is a tea falling within the definition of Section 3(n) of the Act. In our view, the manner of preparation of tea and the process of manufacture of 'instant tea' powder cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to have strained itself by referring to other enactments to construe 'instant tea' as the product not included within the definition of 'tea' under the Act." It was also held that the orders impugned were based on the exemption notification dated 11-11-1999 and could not be sustained. Where levy was not contemplated by statute, issuance of an exemption notification for a particular period could n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
