Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Mumbai - Vii vs Skol Breweries Ltd on 15 June, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI APPEAL NO: E/3244/2001 Cross-Objection No:E/CO-290/2002 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No: ZBN/49/M-VII/2001 dated 30/07/2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai - VII.) For approval and signature: Hon'ble Shri P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Shri S.K. Gaule, Member (Technical) 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? : No 2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? : No 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? : Seen 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? : Yes Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs Mumbai - VII ...Appellant Vs Skol Breweries Ltd. ...Respondent
Appearance:
Mr. W.L. Hangshing, Authorised Representative (JCDR for the appellant Mr. Gajendra Jain, Advocate for the respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Shri S.K. Gaule, Member (Technical) Date of decision: 15/06/2010 ORDER NO: ____________________________ Per: P.G. Chacko:
This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the commodity ("Malt Extract" as it is called by the department and "WORT" as it is called by the assessee), on which the department wanted to levy duty of excise, was not marketable or excisable. The grounds of this appeal have been contested by the respondent by way of written submissions styled as "Cross-Objections"
2. After hearing both sides, we find that the short question arising in this case for consideration stands settled in favour of the respondent by an earlier decision of this Bench which has been accepted by the department vide order No. 1310-1311/WZB/2003 dated 19/09/2003 in appeal Nos. E/2159 & 2545/2002 (M/s. Skol Breweries Ltd. and another vs. CCE, Mumbai). In the said case, this Tribunal found the above commodity to be not marketable / excisable and accordingly, the demand of duty raised on appellant-breweries was set aside. We are also told that, in the assessee's own case for a subsequent period, the Commissioner of Central Excise as adjudicating authority dropped a similar demand of duty following the Tribunal's decision cited above. We are also told that the Commissioner's order has not been challenged.
3. In the result, the impugned order is upheld and this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. The so-called Cross-Objections also gets disposed of for the record. (Dictated in Court) (S.K. Gaule) Member (Technical) (P.G. Chacko) Member (Judicial) */as ??
??
??
??
3 3