2012 (12) TMI 980

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Appeal No. E/2986/2005-NB(S) by the Member (Technical) of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. 3. By the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the respondent - assessee and in consequence, set-aside the order dated 3-6-2005 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Raipur in Appeal No. 38/RPR-1/2005. 4. So the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing the appeal filed by the assessee and thereby, was justified in setting aside of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 3-6-2005? 5. We consider it apposite to reproduce the entire order passed by the Tribunal for perusal, beca....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r order of this Tribunal in the case of Aureola Chemicals Ltd. v. C.C.E., Indore - 2004 (175) E.L.T. 148 and C.C.E., Vadodara v. Paushak Ltd. - 2005 (187) E.L.T. 249. On the question of clearances under Chapter X procedure being exempt clearances, the Tribunal held as under : "9. In the instant case, it is found that the clearances are as per Chapter X procedure. No duty has been paid on the DEEC due to remission provided under Chapter X, then it cannot be a case of exemption or assessable to Nil rate of duty. 10. The findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the clearance under Chapter X procedure is remission of duty, which cannot be equated with the exemption from duty is the view that cannot find fault with. The citati....