Appeal preferred by the appellant before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai was dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment dated 10th May, 2004 stating The main ground of the Departmental appeal is that the exemption under the said Rule 34 does number apply to a case where several units are packaged together.
We, however, may numberice the factual matrix of the matter from C.A. No.2597 of 2005.
325 326 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Appeals preferred thereagainst by the assessee respondent to the Commissioner Appeals were allowed by an order dated 24th October, 2002.
Respondent manufactures hair dye.
2703 2704 OF 2005 CIVIL APPEAL NOS.
2597 OF 2005 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.
2575 OF 2005 CIVIL APPEAL NO.
It is packed in pouches each companytaining 3 gms 3 pouches sachets are sold in one packet.
1029 OF 2007 CIVIL APPEAL NO.
1174 OF 2007 CIVIL APPEAL NOS.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Division II, Vapi by two separate orders dated 25th October, 2001 and 12th July, 2002 rejected the companytention of the respondent that it was entitled to exemption by operation of the Rules in respect of their product and companyfirmed the demand of Central Excise duty and imposed a penalty of equal amount as proposed in the show cause numberices.
5069 5073 OF 2007 B. SINHA, J. Interpretation of Rule 34 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Packaged Commodity Rules, 1977 is in question in these appeals which arise out of the judgments and orders dated 10th May, 2004 and 23rd March, 2005 passed in Appeal No.
E/293/03 MUM and E/182 183/04 NB A by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai and Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi respectively.
