2015 (2) TMI 382

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Respondent : Shri V S Sejpal, Adv. ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair: The appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal no. BR/129-130/Th-II/2004 dated 14.09.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-I, wherein the respondent's appeals were allowed. 2. The fact of the case is that the respondent is engaged in the activity of cutting and slitting of various sizes of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and penalty under rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The adjudicating authority while adjudicating the show cause notice vide orders-in-original no. 169/2004 dated 30.05.2004 and no. 1370/2004 dated 13.08.2004 and, confirmed the demand and also imposed equal amount of penalty. The demand was confirmed under the finding that the product in question is classifiable under Chapter Heading 480....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vt. Ltd. reported in 1999 (105) ELT 341 (T). Aggrieved by the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue is before us. 3. Shri V. K. Agrawal, learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue, submits that the respondent had classified the product viz. paper under Chapter Sub-heading 4820.00 and claimed exemption under Notification 10/2002 dated 1.3.2002. Since the produ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... In such case, irrespective of any wrong declaration of classification when the activity itself does not amount to manufacture, there is no question of demand of any excise duty. The learned counsel submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) by careful application of mind relying on various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of the Tribunal wherein the subject issue has been settled, all....