2008 (8) TMI 618

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....SDR, for the Appellant. S/Shri N. Prasad and Savith V. Gopal, Advocates, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. -  All these appeals are by the Revenue. The first appeal is against the dropping of a demand under Rule 57CC of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. The original authority had demanded 8% of the price of 'pressmud' cleared by the respondents from t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Commissioner's decision on the premise that 'pressmud' is not excisable has only to be sustained and it is ordered accordingly. The first appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. 2. In the other two appeals, the challenge is against dropping of similar demand @ 8% of the sale proceeds of 'biocompost' which was prepared by mixing 'pressmud' with effluents from the respondents' distillery. I....