2017 (6) TMI 41

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../02/2009 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Meerut-I at Ghaziabad. Further, Appeal Nos. E/1669, 1801/2011 are directed against Order-in-Appeal Nos.264-CE/GZB/2011 dated 25/03/2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Meerut-I at Ghaziabad. The issue involved in above stated 4 appeals is the same. Therefore, they are taken together for decision. 2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s International Tobacco Company Ltd. is engaged in manufacture of cut-tobacco falling under Tariff Item No.24039970 and different brands of Cigarettes falling under Tariff Items Nos.240222010, 24022020, 24022030 and 24022040 of schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. M/s International Tobacco procured in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....use notice was adjudicated through Order-in-Original dated 31.01.2008 wherein the demand was confirmed. Aggrieved by the said order, M/s International Tobacco preferred appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). Learned Commissioner (Appeals) through the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 26.02.2009 decided the appeal, wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the dummy packets were dutiable under chapter 49 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Aggrieved by the said order, M/s International Tobacco has preferred appeals before this Tribunal. Further, aggrieved by the said order, revenue has also preferred appeal before this Tribunal. Contention of the revenue is that the said dummy packs should be classified under chapter Headi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he learned A.R. for revenue, who has supported the impugned Order-in-Appeal and grounds of appeals filed by the revenue. 6. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of records, we find that M/s International Tobacco, brought into their factory inputs for manufacture of their packing material to be used for packing of the goods manufactured by them. Some of the packing materials was also used of making the dummy packs, which are not sold and were distributed and used as advertising material. We find that the dummy packs were not marketable, since they were not capable of being bought and sold in the market because they were advertising material of the assessee who were making the same. We therefore, hold that dummy packs did....