TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t by their customers. The adjudicating authority has dropped proceedings by relying upon the Order-in-Appeal No. 60/2003 (G) C.E. dated 11-11-2003, wherein it was held that “road tankers manufactured and cleared by the assesses are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 6/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2000. Commissioner (Appeals) uphold the order of adjudicating authority. Held that- the issue involved in this appeal has already attained finality in favour of the respondent, we do not find merits in the appeal filed by the Revenue and we reject the same. - E/307/2006 - 1134/2009 - Dated:- 10-9-2009 - S/Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (J) and P. Karthikeyan, Member (T) Ms. Sudha Koka, SDR, for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sesses are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 6/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2000, in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sree Rayalaseema Alkalies and Allied Chem. Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1998 (104) E.L.T. 573 (T)." 3. Aggrieved by such order of dropping of proceedings by the Adjudicating Authority, Revenue preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) while upholding the order of the Adjudicating Authority came to the following findings : "I have gone through the case records and the submissions made by the assessee including those urged at the time of personal hearing. I find that the issue has already been settled in Order in Appeal No. 60/2003 (G)-C.E., dated 11-11-2003, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (G)-C.E. both dated 10-9-2004 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Guntur and the decision is awaited. 2. The CEGAT decision in Sri Rayalaseema Alkalies Allied Chem., Ltd., v. CCE, Hyderabad (CEGAT Order Nos. 1209-1210/98, dated 26-6-98 in Appeal Nos. E/V/217/98) [1998 (104) E.L.T. 573 (Tribunal)] is not at all applicable to the present case. The circumstances of the said case are different from that of the present case. The grounds on which the exemption was denied in the said CEGAT case are that, tanks were not captively used within the factory and the second objection was that the appellants do not own the chassis on which the bodies were mounted. Whereas in the present case the grounds for denial of the exemption under the said No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
