9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1026X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a pouch containing butter scotch inside the pack of coffee bite amounts to manufacture and within the definition of Section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act? 2. Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in its finding that the butterscotch pouch inside the pack of coffee bite without any treatment amounts to manufacture? and 3. Whether the Tribunal is correct in allowing the credit of duty paid on the butterscotch inasmuch as butterscotch was not an input used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product, i.e., coffee bite in view of the definition of input in terms of Rule 2(k) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004?" 2. The 2nd respondent/assessee is a manufacturer of Sugar Confectionery without Cocco falling un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -5-2007. 5. Against the said order, the respondent/assessee preferred appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, on considering the facts of the case, allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, against which the appellant/Department has preferred the present appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/assessee raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the case of the appellant contending that the appellant ought not to have filed the appeal in view of the litigation policy of the Government issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise & Customs vide Instructions dated 20-10-2010 in F.No. 390/Misc./163/2010-JC, wherein the following instruction has been issued :- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... National Litigation Policy of the Government was issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise & Customs vide Instructions dated 20-10-2010 in F.No. 390/Misc./163/2010-JC and, therefore, there was no bar on the appellant/Department in filing the appeal. 9. Heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/Department and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee and perused the materials available on record. 10. As submitted by the learned standing counsel for the Department, the National Litigation Policy was issued on 20-10-2010 while the appeal was admitted on 8-9-2008. Therefore, there was nothing wrong in the Department filing the appeal. However, it is to be p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e above policy inspite of the appeal having been admitted on 8-9-2008. 12. Therefore, even though this appeal is filed to consider the above question of law, referred to supra, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal in view of the preliminary objection made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the monetary limit to prefer an appeal is pegged at Rs. 2,00,000/- by the litigation policy of the Government issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise & Customs vide Instructions dated 20-10-2010 in F.No. 390/Misc./163/2010-JC. 13. It is seen from the records that the order-in-original came to be passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Cuddalore, vide order in C. No. IV/16/70/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
