2018 (3) TMI 912

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (Technical) Shri Pawan Kumar Singh (Supdt) AR, for Appellant Shri Nishant Mishra (Advocate), for Respondent Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar The present appeal is arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 201-CE/APPL/KNP/2011 dated 30.08.2011 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Kanpur. The appeal is filed by Revenue. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was manufactur .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h Order-in-Original dated 08.06.2011, wherein the demand was confirmed and equal penalty was imposed. Aggrieved by the said order responder preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). Learned Commissioner (Appeals) decided the appeal through impugned Order-in-Appeal. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has taken into consideration the communication received from chemical examiner and relying on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er did not give the chemical composition of the samples forwarded to him but he has referred to Chapter Note 3 and gave his opinion that the goods were manufactured tobacco. 5. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of records we find that in the present case Revenue wants to delegate the power of adjudication to the chemical examiner which is beyond the scope of Central Excise Ac .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X