TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 287
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (Technical) Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Joint Commissioner (AR), for Appellant Shri Atul Gupta & Shri Hrishikesh, Advocates, for Respondent Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar The present two appeals are filed by the Revenue against a common impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 240-241/CE/MRT-II/2009 dated 31/08/2009. Therefore, they are taken together for decision. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondents w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... tune of Rs. 50000/- under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved by the said order, respondents had preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), wherein both the appeals were decided by Learned Commissioner (Appeals) through the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 31.08.2009, wherein learned Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the said Order-in-Original dated 27.02.2009 and allowed the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounds of appeal. 5. Heard the learned Counsel for respondents, who has taken us through the order dated 16.07.2009 passed by this Tribunal in the case of Chadha Brass Equipment Ltd. (supra). He has taken us through para-07 of the said order wherein this Tribunal has held, as follows:- "We do not, prima facie, agree with the view that merely because in the process of trimming, certain wastes have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... out regarding the demand in view of Notification. Further, he has taken us through the Ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur Vs Mewar Bartan Nirman Udyog reported at 2008 (231) ELT 27 (SC), wherein he has demonstrated the last two sentences of Para-04 of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Which are as follows:- "In this case, circles ma....