9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 896X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Addl Commr (AR) ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair: The appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No: PKS/17/BEL/2010 dated 29.04.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai III, wherein the learned Commissioner sustaining the Order-in-Original, rejected the appeal field by the appellant. 2. Brief fact of the case is that M/s Cadbury India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority after due process of law, confirmed the demand of Rs. 4,32,217/- under Section11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (said Act) along with appropriate interest. A penalty of equivalent amount was also imposed under the provisions of Section 11AC of the said Act. 2.1 Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original No. 105/2010-11/DC/W.I/M.III dated 22.12.2010. The appellant filed an appeal before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it Rules, 2004 it is not applicable. In this support, he relies on the following judgements:- (i) Rallis India Vs. UOI - 2009 (233) ELT 301 (Bom.) (ii) Jai Steels (India) Vs. CCE - 2010 (253) ELT 700 (Tri.-Del). (iii) CCE Vs. Pioneer Agro Industries Ltd. - 2010 (255) ELT 258 (T) 4. On the other hand Shri Rakesh Goyal, learned A.R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue, reiterates the findings of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing unavoidably during the course of final product, the same shall be considered as by-product only and therefore payment of amount as provided under Rule 57CC of erstwhile Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is not applicable. In view of the above settled position, I am of the considered view that in the present case also the lower authority has wrongly confirmed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
