2004 (8) TMI 275

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....chewing tobacco falling under Heading 2404.41 was fully exempt. The second proviso to this Notification provided that where the use was in a factory of a manufacturer different from his factory, the exemption would be available subject to following Chapter X Procedure. 3. This Notification was amended by Notification 21/96 dated 23-7-1996. The only change made by this amendment was that the aforesaid sub-headings were removed and Chapter 24 was included instead. 4. The Appellants after following the procedure laid down in Chapter X and after submitting CT-2 certificates claimed exemption of the unbranded chewing tobacco, sent by them to the factories of V.H. Patel and Co. w.e.f. 10-9-1998. V.H. Patel and Co specifically sought permiss....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....not exist. Hence this appeal. 8. After hearing both sides and considering the material, it is found - (a)     The Assistant Commissioner and CCE (Appeals) have travelled beyond the show cause notice and have sustained the demand on grounds not contained in the show cause notice that is not permissible. Their orders are, therefore, illegal. In Prince Khadi Woollen Handloom Prod. Coop. Indl. Society v. CCE - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 637 (S.C.) the Supreme Court held that an exemption could not to be denied on a ground other than originally contended by the Revenue and that an assessee must be given Show Cause Notice for ground of denial of exemption and matter must be proceeded from that stage. This has been followed by this....