2017 (5) TMI 1332

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eputy Commissioner(AR) for the appellant Shri Cherian Punnoose, Advocate for the respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 17/11/2003 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) wherein the Commissioner(Appeals) has passed a common order disposing of two appeals of assessee and one appeal of Department. The Commissioner(Appeals) by the impugn....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rity decided the issue in different manners, one contradicting the other. There is a Department appeal as well as two appeals filed by the assessee before the Commissioner(Appeals) who disposed of all the three appeals by the impugned order. Against which the Department has filed the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. The learned AR submitted that the impug....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....isable. He further relied upon the following decisions in support of his submission that Ferric Chloride waste i.e. Ferric Chloride solution is not an excisable item as it does not fulfil the preconditions as prescribed in the definition in Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He further submitted that for the subsequent period with regard to the same issue, the Commissioner(Appeals) vide....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....excisable goods even after the introduction of Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 w.e.f. 10/05/2008. He also submitted that the decisions of the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court have also been followed by the Tribunal in the case of Magnum Ventures Vs. CCE, Ghaziabad [(2014) 51 taxmann.com 68 (New Delhi  CESTAT)]. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties, w....