TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 632X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above appeals have been filed by M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Limited, Puducherry (herein after referred to as the appellant ) against the Orders-in-Original No. 511 512/2009 -RSV dated 11-8-2009 passed by the Maritime Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-I Commissionerate. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant are manufacturer of excisable goods falling under Chapter 38 85 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause notices were issued by the Maritime Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai proposing to reject the claims for non-entitlement of rebate as per Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. After adjudication, the Lower Adjudicating Authority passed the impugned Orders-in-Original allowing rebate only for Mosquito Repellant Liquid portion which had been manufactured and rejected the claims fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relation to the goods specified in the third schedule and involves packing or repacking or such goods in a unit container and hence it cannot be said that there is no manufacturing activity; (v) that the following decisions show that they are eligible for rebate: (1) 2004 (170) E.L.T. 568 (T) (2) Ispat Industrial Ltd. - 2007 (216) E.L.T. 497 (T) (3) 2000 (121) E.L.T. 474 (T). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d goods were exported is not questioned. The only ground under which Lower Adjudicating Authority has rejected the rebate claim, is that there was no activity of manufacture in relation to Mosquito Repellent Machine. But the LAA himself has agreed in para 5 of the impugned order that the goods were exported as combi-packs. Further, Section 2(f)(iii) states that manufacture includes any process in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
