2017 (8) TMI 1210

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri S. Karthik, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The respondents are manufacturers of tyres, tubes and other rubber products. Compound rubber was one of the intermediate products used by the respondent/assessee in their manufacture of final products. During the material period, ADV tyres i.e. tyres for animal-drawn vehicles were not dutiable and consequently intermediate prod....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he original authority confirmed the demand which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Aggrieved by the order of Commissioner (Appeals), the respondents went in appeal before the Tribunal and vide Final Order No.572/204 dated 12.7.2004, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority with a direction for quantification of the duty liability for the said period. The Tribunal also directed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent Shri M. Karthik brought to notice of the Bench that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of Ralson (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh as reported in 2015 (319) ELT 234 (SC) has held that the exemption is available to compound rubber during the interim period and thus the demand itself has now become unsustainable. 3. Against this, the learned AR Shri S. Govindaraj....