2017 (5) TMI 95

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The present three appeals are directed against the impugned Orders dated 31.1.2014; 28.3.2014 and 23.5.2014 passed by the Commissioner (A) vide which he has upheld the Orders-in-Original. As the issue is identical in all these appeals and therefore they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Briefly the facts of the present....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....it. But Assistant Commissioner after considering the reply from the appellant confirmed the demand vide various Orders-in-Original dated 25.09.2012; 31.10.2011; and 28.2.2013. Aggrieved by the said orders, appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (A). The Commissioner (A) upheld the Orders-in-Original. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. The learned counsel for the appel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ure of final product. In support of his submission, she relied upon the following authorities. (i) CCE vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd.: 2010 (20) S.T.R. 577 (ii) Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2009 (15) S.T.R. 657 3.1 The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted the authorities of KPMG vs. CCE, New Delhi reported in 2014 (33) S.T.R. 96 in which the Hon'ble CESTAT, New Delhi has held ....