D.K.JAIN, T.S.THAKUR
Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Pearl Drinks Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
T.S. Thakur, J. —
1.These appeals have been filed under Section 35(L)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. They are directed against an order dated 22nd July, 2002 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, whereby an appeal preferred by the Revenue against an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise has been dismissed on the principle of merger. The Tribunal has held that the order passed by the Excise Commissioner had merged in that passed by the former in an earlier appeal filed by the assessee against the very same order. The fact that the said appeal was limited to only two of the eight deductions that formed the subject matter of controversy between the parties, according to the Tribunal made no difference.
2.The respondent-company is engaged in the manufacture and sale of aerated water falling under heading 22.01 and 22.02 of Chapter 22 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In the course of scrutiny of records the excise authorities noticed that the respondent- company had not affected any sale of aerated water to any wholesale buyer at its factory gate. It had instead been clearing the manufactured product in glass
Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr.(2000) 6 SCC 359
Mauria Udyog Ltd. v.Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi II (2003) 9 SCC 139
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay v. AmritlalBhogilal & Co. (AIR 1958 SC 868)
State of Madras v. Madurai Mills Co. Ltd. (AIR 1967 SC 681
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.