TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 1962
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 Soaps Ltd. for the period 17-9-1985 onward....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce 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 Notification No. 101/66 ibid were dropped. Revenue ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 submissions. 6. After hearing both the sid....