1998 (12) TMI 132

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Respondents. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. - The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad, extending the benefit of Notification 180/88 to items listed herein below, manufactured by the 3 different respondents herein : 1. Aluminium Dabba & Dabbi 2. Puri Dabba 3. Betha Dabba 4. Masala Dabba 5. Achaar Dabba 6. Papad D .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nary and the Revenue's reliance is also upon the Tribunal's order reported in 1989 (42) E.L.T. 142 in the case of CCE v. Sandeep Metal Industries. 2. Notice for today's hearing was issued to the respondents; however, none appears on behalf of the respondents and hence we heard Shri Negi, learned SDR and perused the records. 3. In the decision relied upon by the Revenue, the definition .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fit to be regarded as containers. Similarly, items at Sl. Nos. 19, 26, 27 and 34 are not utensils, but containers. Therefore, we hold that the extension of benefit to the above Sl. Nos. by the lower appellate authority is not correct in law. Collector (Appeals) has already held that Sl. Nos. 13, 14, 18, 20, 22, 24 and 29 are not covered by the Notification. 4. In the result, we modify the i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X