TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent is under challenge before this Tribunal. But both the grounds are not sustainable in law - The earlier decision of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) whereby he classified the impugned items under sub heading No. 4801.00 was upheld by the Tribunal by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue in COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH VERSUS NACHIKETA PAPER LTD. [ 2009 (2) TMI 559 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] . It is noted that for the subsequent period also the Additional Commissioner has given the benefit to the respondent of Notification No. 23/98-CE dated 1.8.1998. Since, the Revenue has not filed any appeal against the decision of the Tribunal whereby the benefit of the notification was extended to the respondent and keeping in view that f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... du religion and hence it does not qualify for the definition of Newsprint as envisaged under Notification No. 23/98-CE dated 1.8.1998, inasmuch as it is neither a daily/weekly publication nor in unbound form. Moreover, the magazine does not contain printed matter consisting mainly of current news. Hence, the department came to the conclusion that the respondent has wrongly availed the benefit of Notification No. 23/98-CE dated 1.8.1998 without disclosing the material fact with intent to evade payment of central excise duty. As per the department, the respondent is liable to pay the duty @16% amounting to Rs. 39.035/- which was sought to be recoverable from them and for this purpose, a show cause notice was issued and after following due p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assified the impugned goods under Chapter sub-heading 4801.00. He also submits that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order followed his own decision with regard to the respondent itself and classified the impugned goods under Chapter Heading No. 4801.00. He further submitted that the said decision of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for the earlier period was challenged before the Tribunal and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue vide its order reported in 2009 (243) ELT 434 (Tri.-Del.). The Ld. Counsel also placed on record the decision of the Additional Commissioner in the case of respondent itself wherein the Ld. Additional Commissioner for the subsequent period, dropped the demand against the respondent and class ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
