IN 'rim men coum' or KARNATAKA AT
Dated this the 99* day of September,--f201OT V'
PRESENT' '_
TI-IE I-ION'!-ILE MR.-4.,:usTI{3i2 at
Ara) _ " V' I V
THE HON'BLE'-.1fi$R. KEMPANNA
Comrrijssiunefbf"'Ce11'gralT Excise
Bangalore LEI, Coxmt};issio_fie.ra--te
PB. N0.f54(}0. Qiieeifs .-Rbad
Bangalore 4-4560.00} " ...Appeiiant
"a__(By Sri J eevan J . Neeralgi. Advocate)
Mysczé cements Ltcl..
_P.O. Ammasandra
; = ..'1'u_ruvékere Taluk
]Z)is't{. Tumkur -« 572 211 - ...Respondent
V.
ix.)
This CEA is filed under Section35G of the Centi’.ai*E’.xcise
Act, 1944 arising out of order dated 06-05-2009″pa”ss’ed in
Finai order No.610/2009, praying to (i) the
substantial question of law stated therein. (ii) “set_asideVthe
CESTAT, South Zone Bench, Banga1or_e..__i’1’i. o’rder’__
No.6-10/2009 dated 6/5/2009, in Appeal N’o.868,?2.OO8_,:e&Vin’the.
ends of justice and equity.
This CEA coming ford” day;
N KUMAR J., delivered the foiidwirigz ‘ I *
The questioi1_ is whether the
assessee ‘to:–.r V under the notification
0«3,»_.aO3_,2006 which prescribes excise duty
at Rs.4(‘)O_-O0 per.uwhether he is iiabie to pay at the rate of
Rs.fj>’0’O-_OO uperr as the goods supplied were in packaged
Condriti’ofn and used for construction industry.
.0
gig 1 – said question raised for consideration between
t11e’VdsaIn,e’;:i:arties in CEA 144/O9 has been answered in favour
of theviiassessee and against the revenue holding that the
\i/
assessee is entitled to the benefit of exemption. ‘£”.»”1_ViV’s’* is
also dismissed in like terms for the reasons set.–§t1t : V’