TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (3) TMI 184
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), revenue has referred the present appeal. 2. I have heard Shri Bharat Bhushan, learned DR appearing for the Revenue, and Shri Rajesh Chhibber learned advocate appearing for the respondent. 3. As per facts on record the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of kraft paper. Their fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....availed on the same. 5. On the above basis, proceedings were initiated against the appellant by way of issuance of show cause notice dated 3-9-2008 proposing confirmation of demand of duty of Rs. 2,00,513/- then, Rs. 1,31,524/- and Rs. 1,55,207/- along with confirmation of interest amount and imposition of penalty. The show cause notice culminated into an order passed by the original adjudicati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n trial basis. As such relying upon the Tribunal decision in the case of CCE, Delhi v. Duracell (India) Pvt. Ltd., 2001 (137) E.L.T. 882 (Tri.-Delhi), wherein inputs used for trial production of finished goods were held to be eligible inputs, he set aside the confirmation of demand of the said ground along with setting aside of penalty. The said order of Commissioner is impugned against before Tri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce, cannot lead to inference of clandestine removal. To the same effect is the Tribunal decision in the case of L.M. Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad - 2011 (264) E.L.T. 243 (Tri.-Delhi) as also the Tribunal decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata v. Hanuman Udyog - 2008 (222) E.L.T. 395 (Tri.-Kolkata). As such, the appellate authority was just....