SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

G.R.SHARMA, S.S.KANG
Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore-I – Appellant
Versus
Busimen Offset Printers (P. ) Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
M.P. Singh,L.P. Asthana, Ashok Upadhyay

ORDER

PerG.R. Sharma :

These 15 appeals have been filed by the Revenue being aggrieved by the order of Commissioner (Appeals) holding that "I find from the above and perusal of the Notf. No. 9/99 that there is no mention in the notification, for exercising the option on a separate letter giving therein the information required to be filed. But what is required for availing the benefit of notification is that the manufacturer has to exercise his option and furnish the informations required under the notification. Since, in these cases, the informations required have already been submitted on the body of the classification declaration filed by the respondents and having been satisfied with that information, the adjudicating authority extended the benefit of the notification to the respondents. Besides, I also find that the adjudicating authority while passing the impugned order relied upon the decisions of the Tribunal which have also been referred by the respondents supra and an Order-in-Appeal No. 144-CE/IND/REV/99/44 dt. 4.1.2000 has been passed by this office in a similar case. The appellants in their grounds of appeal failed not only to give any reasons for not accepting the reaso

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top