9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 566X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Order-in-Appeal No. BPS (296) 40/2003 dated 19.9.2003. 2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Midas Care Pharma P. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) have filed a classification list claiming exemption under Notification 287/86 dated 5.5.86 for their product Rustolene Super Spray falling under Chapter 27 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Asst. Commissioner denied the be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent filed an appeal with the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals) who vide the impugned order has held that the Order in Original suffers on the point of natural justice by not providing any cogent reason for denial of benefit of exemption under Notification 287/86 and also not demanding the duty as per settled law position and allowed the appeal of the respondent. Revenue is before this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their claim. 4. No one appeared on behalf of the respondent. Respondent vide letter dated 27.08.2011 have requested for adjournment of the case but after going through the case paper and hearing the DR, we find that this is a fit case for sending the matter back to the original authority. 5. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the Order in Original on the ground of non- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
