9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 803X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the respondent manufacturer/assessee is entitled to the benefit of Notification No.67/95 in respect of molasses used captively for manufacture of rectified spirit and denatured spirit. 3. On the basis of the show cause notice issued, the Commissioner held that the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of nil duty. The assessee, aggrieved by the said order, preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that demand of duty in respect of credit taken on molasses is not correct and held in favour of the respondents/assessees. Aggrieved against the said order, the Revenue is before this Court by filing the present appeal. 4. Heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er appealed against is received by the Commissioner of Central Excise or the other party; (b) accompanied by a fee of two hundred rupees where such appeal is filed by the other party; (c) in the form of a memorandum of appeal precisely stating therein the substantial question of law involved. Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law?(3) is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question. The appeal shall be heard only on the question so formulated, and the?(4) respondents shall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such question : Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the Court to hear, for reasons to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rate of duty that is payable by the respondent, but for the notification in question. Therefore, the objection as raised by the respondent is liable to be sustained, more so, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Navin Chemicals Manufacturing & Trading Co. Ltd. - Vs Collector of Customs (1993 (68) ELT 3 (SC)), which decision has been followed by this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise Vs - Vadapalani Press (2014-TIOL-2208-HC-MAD-CX). 8. Learned standing counsel for the department pleads in that in similar matter, the Karnataka High Court held that though the appeal would lie only to the Supreme Court in matters of this nature, however, liberty was given to the department to move before the Supreme Court. 9. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
