9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law and facts involved are common and hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law. These appeals are filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy against the Order-in-Appeal Nos. 4, 18, 19, 20 and 21, dated 23-1-98 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Trichy by which he has set aside five different orders-in-original passed by the original authority by holdi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubsequently cleared their final product to the respondents on payment of duty by raising invoices as "on A/c of M/s. IPL" (the respondents), and not sold by them. 3. The respondents had also availed Modvat credit on inputs viz. Linear Alkyl Beneze Sulphuric acid (LABSA) received from M/s. Advance Detergents (P) Ltd., Pondicherry who had received the Liner Alkyl Beneze (LAB) (input for LABSA) from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l before the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the orders-in-original and allowed the appeals of the respondents. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the orders-in-original, the Revenue has come in appeal on the ground that the Modvat credit availed by the respondents based on documents that were marked as "A/c M/s. IPL, Mumbai" is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Modvat credit and he sought for allowing the Revenue appeals. 7. Shri N. Venkataraman, learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is perfectly in order as he has followed the ratio of the similar orders passed by him and his predecessors and those orders have attained finality having been not appealed against. He therefore, pray ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs and the only objection raised by the Revenue is that the invoice has been marked "not for sale". The duty paid nature of the goods is also not under challenge. We also observe that identical issue has come up before this Bench of the Tribunal in the matter of CCE, Coimbatore v. Achutha Vulcanising Cement Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2001 (132) E.L.T. 509 wher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
