TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 581X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , for the Appellant. Shri T.R. Rustogi, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER Common issue is involved in these appeals and, therefore, all are being taken up together for disposal. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of chewing tobacco. They are also manufacturing tobacco of essence captively consumed in the manufacture of chewing tobacco cleared on payment of duty. Tobacco es ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e learned advocate on behalf of the respondents placed the decision of the Tribunal in their own case vide Final order No. 533/2008 Ex. dated 15-7-2004 [M/s. S.R. Fragrance Ltd. (now Dharampal Satyapal Ltd.) v. CCE, Chandigarh - 2009 (235) E.L.T. 877 (T)] wherein the Tribunal set aside the demand of duty on identical issue on the ground of revenue neutrality. The relevant portion of the said decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the entire exercise is revenue neutral and the demand of duty is required to be set aside on this ground itself. We order accordingly and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant(s). 3. We also noted that the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy v. Kulavi Tobacco Industry [2008 (227) E.L.T. 416 (Tri.-Chennai)] on the identical issue rejected the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
