Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 3]

Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi

Collector Of Central Excise vs New Field Paper Industries on 1 January, 1999

Equivalent citations: 1999(113)ELT598(TRI-DEL)

ORDER
 

 S.S. Kang, Member (J)
 

1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the appellants. The Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal, dated 23-8-1993 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents, during the period from 2-2-1988 to 31-7-1988, cleared "Gummed paper in Jumbo rolls" classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 4817.10 without payment of duty. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent raising demand for recovery of Central Excise duty. The demand was confirmed. The respondents filed appeal against the adjudication order and the Collector (Appeals) vide order dated 21-2-1991 classified the goods under sub-heading 4811 and allowed the exemption for payment of duty under Notification No. 49/87, dated 1-3-1987 to the respondent.

3. Following the above order of Collector (Appeals) the adjudicating authority dropped the demand. The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of adjudicating authority for dropping demand. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) in the impugned order held that the Asstt. Collector simply followed the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals) whereby the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 49/87-C.E. was granted to the respondents. Therefore he upheld the order passed by the adjudicating authority.

4. Ld. DR appeared on behalf of the Revenue submits that the respondents are not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 49/87-C.E., dated 1-3-1987 as the Gummed and adhesive paper are not covered under the Notification .

5. Heard ld. JDR and perused the appeal papers.

6. The adjudicating authority simply dropped the demand in pursuance to the Order-in-Appeal dated 12-2-1991 passed by the Collector (Appeals) whereby the Collector (Appeals) allowed the benefit of Notification No. 49/87 to the respondents. This order passed by the Collector (Appeals) was not challenged by the Revenue. Hence the grant of benefit of exemption notification to respondents become final and in the present adjudication that order is followed. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.