TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, public sector undertaking, industrial consumers etc - Held that: - First of all, the Revenue has not produced any evidence regarding the decision of Hon’ble High Court or Hon’ble Supreme Court overruling the Tribunal decision in Grasim Industries [2008 (10) TMI 462 - CESTAT, CHENNAI]. Further, it is not correct for the Revenue to say that the circular will be applicable only to some portion of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 53847/2016 - Dated:- 28-9-2016 - Mr. S. K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) and Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri Yogesh Agarwal, DR for the appellant -Revenue Shri Sanjay Grover, Advocate for the Respondent - assessee ORDER The appeal by Revenue is against order dated 29.07.2010 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal. The respondents are engaged in the manufactur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - (M/s Maihar Cement) and ₹ 62,15,267/- (Unit -II). The original authority decided the case and confirmed a demand of ₹ 18,41,403/- (M/s Maihar Cement) and ₹ 1,79,169/- (Unit-II). The demand for remaining amount was dropped. He also imposed various penalties. 2. The Revenue preferred this appeal against that portion of original order which dropped the demand against the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . We find both the above grounds are having no substance. First of all, the Revenue has not produced any evidence regarding the decision of Hon ble High Court or Hon ble Supreme Court overruling the Tribunal decision in Grasim Industries (supra). Further, it is not correct for the Revenue to say that the circular will be applicable only to some portion of the country and should not be relied up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
