2016 (10) TMI 865

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ner (AR) for the appellant Shri V. B. Gaikwad, Advocate for the respondent ORDER      This appeal is filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No: PII/BKS/330/2005 dated 26/08/2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune - II. 2.  Heard both the sides and perused the records. 3. The issue in brief that arise for consideration is whether the skimmed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sue.  In the denovo proceedings the adjudicating authority confirmed the demands raised by recording a finding that the goods were packed in unit containers and were branded and were intended for sale, hence having consumed captively duty liability arises. On appeal, the first appellate authority has set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. The grounds of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e duty for captive consumption of the said goods is the claim, specifically in respect of the products in question. 4.3. Reliance placed by the first appellate authority on the judgment of the Hindustan Milk Food Manufacturers Ltd. [1982 (10) ELT 739] is incorrect as in that case the goods were stored for captive consumption in future and not ordinarily intended for sale. 5. On perusal of the re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ch it cannot be said that there was no exemption available on the said products for captive consumption as notification no. 67/95 does not carve out any exception. We find that the first appellate authority has recorded correct findings which we reproduce: "The stand of the department that during the disputed period June 98 to July 98 no exemption was available on the products viz. Skimmed Milk P .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... it in the stand of the department." 6. As against the above reproduced findings there is nothing in the grounds of appeal which is contra per se and the reliance placed on the first appellate authority on the Larger Bench decision is also correct and accordingly we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by Revenue. 7. Appeal is rejected. (Pronounced in Court on 21/09/2016)
Case laws, Dec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X