9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Willingdon Christian, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri R.S. Sangia, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - All the appeals are being disposed off by a common order as the issue involved is identical. The appellants are engaged in manufacture of Cigarettes and Cut Tobacco failing under Chapter 24 of First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e adjudicated by the original adjudicating authority confirming demand of duty along with confirmation of interest and imposing penalty. The said orders were impugned by the appellant before Commissioner (Appeals). Strong reliance was placed upon the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai in the case of Rallis India Ltd. v. UOI as reported in 2009 (233) E.L.T. 301 (Bom.) vide which the Larger Bench judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istinctions drawn by the appellate authority between facts of the present case and facts as available before Mumbai High Court. In the present case, the reading of the show cause notice clearly shows that the Revenue is treating the "Tobacco refuse'' as a by-product. The original adjudicating authority also confirmed the demand by considering the "Tobacco refuse" as a by-product. Appellants are no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the "Tobacco refuse" is a by-product as stated by the Revenue itself in the show case notice, the ratio of law declared by Mumbai High Court would be squarely applicable to the same.
5.We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order and allow all the appeals with consequential relief to the appellant.
(Pronounced in Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
