2011 (3) TMI 1093

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ter 3403.00 is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 12/94 or not. The serial No. 5 of the said notification exempts lubricating preparations falling under Chapter 3403.00 from the duty in excess to the amount calculated at the rate of 10% ad-velorem. The said claim of the appellant stands denied by Commissioner (Appeals) by holding as under :- I have carefully considered the facts on record and the submissions made by the appellants. The adjudicating authority has confirmed the demands on the ground that textile softener is not lubricating preparation and therefore the benefit of notification No. 14/95 is not available to the appellants, who are manufacturers of textile softeners. The appellants have contended that the ingredients of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ification, they have made themselves liable for penalty.   2. As is seen from the above, the appellate authority has observed that inasmuch as textile softener is a preparation of a kind used for oil and grease treatment for textile material, the same cannot be held to be a lubricating preparation so as to be covered by the notification.   3. At this stage, learned DR has drawn our attention to the earlier order of the tribunal in the same appellant s case as reported in 2003 (156) ELT 277 (Tri. Del.). By taking note of the various evidences on record including test reports etc. and the earlier decisions of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Madurai vs. Chennai Inorganics Limited 2002 (150) ELT 552 (Tri. Chennai), it stands he....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as not taken note of the other two orders by itself is not a reason to take a different view. He submits that the issue having been decided in the same appellant s case, the earlier order is required to be followed. In any case, submits the learned DR that in a subsequent case of Reliance Rasayan Pvt. Limited 2006 (200) ELT 251 (Tri. Del.) and in the case of CCE, Jaipur-II vs. L.V. Associates 2009 (235) 341 (Tri. Del.), all the decisions, on which the learned advocate is relying upon now and the one given in the said appellant s case, were taken note of and the decision arrived at in the case of Refinol Resins & Chemicals Limited was followed.   6. After considering the submission, we are agree with the learned DR in the case of Rel....