2011 (7) TMI 873

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Advocate, for Respondents Per  S.K. Gaule Heard both sides. 2. This appeal is arising consequent to Hon'ble Bombay High Court's order dated 14th September, 2010 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration afresh after taking into consideration the Note Sheet duly assigned by the Addl. Commissioner (Legal & TR), Central Excise, Bomb....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Rs.35,040/- and also imposed a penalty of Rs.1,000/- under Rule 173Q under Central Excise Rules, 1944. The respondent challenged the same before the Commissioner (Appeals).  The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal and set aside the lower adjudicating authority's order.  Aggrieved by the order, the Revenue filed an appeal before this Tribunal. The Tribunal vide Order No. C-II/1165/W....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the final product i.e. container and the respondent did not take permission for removing the goods to the job workers under Rule 57  of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944.  5. The contention of the respondent is that the respondent's final products are not plastic containers but wet detergent tissue papers which are clearly shown as final products in the Modvat declaration by the re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....m the Note Sheet produced by the learned SDR I find that the expression 'not legal and correct' forms part of the said note sheet. Therefore, the appeal cannot be dismissed on this count. Accordingly I proceed to decide the case on its merits. The allegation of the department is that the respondent did not disclose the final products and permission was not obtained by the respondent for removing t....