TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (8) TMI 231
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... law in view of the fact that all the appeals arise from common orders in Appeal Nos. 103 & 106/2001, dated 21-9-2001 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the party's contention for granting of benefit of cum duty price is required to be accepted. In the impugned order, he has also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Chennai rendered in the case of Cambodia Mills reported in 2001 (128) E.L.T. 373 (Mad). He has noted that in terms of this High Court order the assessee is required to pay duty only in respect of Yarn manufactured on the day"s sample and the stock lying on that day. 3. Revenue is aggrieved with a part of the order on the ground that the decision of the Tribunal rendered in the case of S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Superfil Products Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai reported in 2002 (48) RLT 319 (CEGAT-Che.) which has upheld this very contention of applying the test result only for the day's production in the light of the High Court of Chennai judgment referred in the case of CCE, Coimbatore v. Cambodia Mills Ltd. reported in 2001 (128) E.L.T. 373 and SRF Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai reported in 2001 (132) E.L.T. 798 (Tri.) = 2001 (45) RLT 190. 4. Heard Shri K. Sanakararaman, ld. Counsel for the appellants and Shri C. Mani, ld. DR for the Revenue. Revenue contentions are same as noted supra. Ld. DR submits that the Revenue appeals are required to be allowed for the reasons stated in the grounds of appeal. Ld. Counsel challenges the order in so far as confirming the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4.3 We have examined the Revenue's contention and the grounds of appeal made by the Revenue and the Assessee. The revenue is aggrieved with the impugned order for two reasons, namely, - (i) for granting the benefit of valuation on the basis of Cum duty price. On this issue the Revenue has stated that the judgment of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Sri Chakra Tyres Ltd. is pending before the Apex Cout. 5. We have considered the Revenue's submission and noticed the issue is no longer res integra. The Apex Court has already disposed of the appeal by upholding the Larger Bench's decision rendered in the case of Sri Chakra Tyres and in the case of CCE v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. reported in 2002 (141) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). Therefore, we negative....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0) E.L.T. A176 (S.C.). The ratio of the judgment rendered in the case of SRF Ltd v. CCE is also applicable to the facts of the case for that reason we cannot find fault in the Commissioner's findings holding that the test result is not applicable to the entire period on which duty has been confirmed. For this reasons, we do not find any merit in the Revenue's Appeals and hence all four Revenue appeals are dismissed. 7. In so far as the assessee appeals are concerned, the ground raised by them is that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not examined their contention that the test result obtained from IIT, New Delhi has been given credence. They have also pointed out the variance in the test result obtained from the Chemical Examiner and the Ch....