E/304/2004, E/314/2004 and E/315/2004 filed by the respondent assessee were allowed.
175/86 CE dated 1.3.1986 for the product CRC Acryform.
The Department issued 12 six monthly show cause numberices between 27.10.1997 to 3.4.2003 for the period April, 1997 to 31.10.2002, demanding an aggregate amount of Rs.
The CESTAT decided all the issues that had arisen for its companysideration and accordingly allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent assessee.
On the basis of the material gathered during the routine transit checks and other information the Department issued show cause numberice dated 12.2.1993 to the respondent assessee calling upon it to show cause as to why Central Excise duty of Rs.
Aggrieved by the said decision the respondent assessee filed an appeal against the aforesaid order dated 31.10.2003 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Mumbai IV.
We have perused the orders passed by the Commissioner as well as the Tribunal.
120/84 CE dated 11.5.1984 That the product CRC Acryform was number entitled to the benefit of Notification No.
Being aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai IV preferred these appeals.
22,55,444/ The matter was initially adjudicated by the Commissioner Adjudication vide order dated 31.8.1998 which was challenged by the respondent assessee in appeal and the Tribunal having set aside the order of the Commissioner remitted the case to the Commissioner for de numbero adjudication.
175/86 CE in case of product CRC Acryform.
In the said show cause numberice mainly 4 issues were raised, namely That the product CRC 2 26 was number a blended lubricating oil and was, therefore, number entitled to the benefit of Notification No.
56,69,872.80p should number be demanded and recovered for the period 26.2.1988 to 24.10.1992.
In their declarations they claimed the classification of the products CRC 2 26 under Chapter 2710.99 and CRC Acryform under Chapter 3203.40.
The manufacture of CRC Acryform was started after September, 1986 but well before Mr. N.J. Danani became Director of BBL.
28 There is numberevidence on record in support of the allegation that the transactions between the respondent companypany and BBL were number on a principle to principal basis.
The facts briefly stated are as follows The respondents M s. Danmet Chemicals Pvt.
3821 23 OF 2005 SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. These appeals preferred under Section 35L b of the Central Excise Act, 1944 hereinafter referred to as the Act are directed against a companymon order dated 22.12.2004 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal hereinafter referred to as CESTAT West Regional Bench, Mumbai by which Appeal Nos.
Ltd. hereinafter referred to as DCPL were manufacturing the products CRC 2 26 Aerosol and CRC Acryform Aerosol since 1983.
We have heard Shri Vikas Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General for the appellant and Shri D. B. Shroff, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent assessee.
175/86CE dated 1.3.1986 inasmuch as the product carried on it the brand name trademark of a person number entitled to the benefit of the Notification That the respondent assessee was a dummy or a fagade of Bharat Bijlee Ltd. for short BBL and also that the respondent and BBL were related persons and that therefore the price at which BBL sold the respondents products should be taken as the assessable value That the respondent assessee had suppressed the facts with intent to evade duty and therefore the proviso to Section 11A 1 of the Act had been invoked.
CIVIL APPEAL NOs.
Shri D.B. Shroff, learned senior companynsel for the respondent assessee supported the findings and companyclusion recorded by the Tribunal and reiterated the case of the respondent assessee that he is entitled for the benefit of both the Notifications referred to hereinabove.
They were claiming exemption under Notification No.
This is totally companytradictory to the evidence available on record as held by the Tribunal.
120/84 CE dated 11.5.1984 for the product CRC 2 26 and SSI exemption under Notification No.
