2017 (2) TMI 979

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....respondent Per Devender Singh: The Revenue has filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Ayurvedic drugs falling under heading 3003.20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the course of the investigation, it was alleged that during the period November 2000 to Septemb....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....LT 481, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand alongwith interest and imposed penalty under section 11AC of the Act. In the appeal filed by the respondents, the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the demand on merits on the basis of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Trichy vs. Grasim Industries Ltd.(supra). However, he has dropped the demand on limitation. The Revenue is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ril, 2005 by way of its judgement in the case of CCE, Trichy vs. Grasim Industries Ltd (supra). In this background, we find that the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the respondent entertained a bonafide belief that they were eligible for the benefit of SSI notification appears to be reasonable and fair. It is also relevant that the judgement in the case of Astra Pharmaceuticals (P) L....