JUDGMENT
1. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the respondent was entitled to be granted permission under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 57F for sending craft paper to job worker for conversion into boxes, which it required for packing the yarn that it manufactured.
2. The provisions of law requiring such permission are no longer in force. The respondent, at the present time, does not require such permission. Commissioner (Appeals) allowing or denying such permission would not be relevant for either side. However, I not that, in any event, the Commissioner (Appeals) order is correct. She has rightly applied the ratio of the decision of the Madras High Court in Ponds (India) Ltd v. CCE 1993 (63) ELT 3 on the identical issue. While the department’s appeal talks at length what the intermediate product is, it does not even seek to answer this point.
3. Appeal dismissed.