TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 372X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. [Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. The facts leading to these appeals are the same. The appellants are the same. These three appeals are therefore being disposed of by this common order. 2. The appellants manufactured aerated waters using soft drink concentrate. A formula was given by the assessees to the department indicating the ratio between the concentrate used and aerated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants. Shri Deepak Kumar represented the Revenue. 4. Shri Nambirajan stated that the same issue in the case of earlier show cause notices was decided by the Tribunal in their Final Order No. C-II/1674-1675/99/WRB, dated 13-7-1999 in favour of the assessees. We have seen the judgment. 5. Paragraph 4 of the order reads as under : 4. It was pointed out by the ld. Counsel that even when the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that it cannot be held that the formula by itself without consideration of any of the other factors would not amount to determination of norms under Rule 173E. It was, therefore, held that there was insufficient basis for the demands of duty. The facts are identical to both the cases. Hence, following the said judgment, we allow the appeals, set aside the impugned order with consequential relief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
