2015 (10) TMI 1962

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Raymond George, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri Rakesh Goyal, Additional Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of detergent powder on behalf of M/s. Godrej....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by the appellant. The said show cause notice was adjudicated by the adjudicating authority holding that as per the report of Dy. Chief Chemist, New Delhi in the Chemical Examiners, Grade-I, Bombay. the principal ingredients is less than 5%, therefore the appellants are entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 101/66 ibid and proceedings in the show cause notice to deny the benefit of Notifica....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the Revenue which is contrary to law. 4. On the other hand, ld. AR supported the impugned order and submits that as the appellant has not contested the said issue before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), therefore they cannot raise this issue before this Tribunal. Hence, the impugned order is required to be upheld. 5. Heard both sides. Considered the....