TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (2) TMI 529
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ocate and G. Venkatesh, Consultant, for the Appellant. Shri Anil Kumar, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J) (Oral)]. - Both appeals pertain to common assessee and they are taken up together for disposal as per law. Although the items used within the factory for manufacture of final products is different in both the appeals but ultimately the question is whether t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the demands raised in this regard for the period April 2000 to July 2004 by show cause notice dated 3-3-2005 in Order-in-Original No. 8/2005-06 dated 29-7-2005, is not correct in law. They rely on the ratio of the following rulings. (a) RINL v. CCE, Visakhapatnam - 2002(150) E.L.T. 743. (b) RINL v. CCE, Visakhapatnam - 2003 (161) E.L.T. 285 aff....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....E.L.T. 743 (b) CCE v. Visveswaraya Iron & Steel Ltd. - 2005 (192) E.L.T. 703. They also rely on two circulars issued by the Board (a) Circular No. 17/93-CX.8 dated 6-2-1993 and No. 33/33/94-CX.8 dated 4-5-1994. 4. The learned Counsel submits that the issue is covered in their favour and the Tribunal at the prima facie stage while hearing the stay applications ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n in denying the benefit of the Notification. 5. The learned JDR files the report from the Commissioner which deals with all the grounds and ultimately revenue submits that the orders passed are correct in law. Further, the written objections does not refer to the citations relied by the appellants, which deals directly on this point including the circulars referred to. 6. We have ....