9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (9) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri K.P. Joshi, Advocate, for the Respondents. [Order per : V.T. Raghavachari, Member (J)]. - The issue involved in all these three appeals being common they were heard together. The three respondents had claimed rebate of excise duty in terms of notification No. 108/78-C.E. dated 28-4-1978. The claim was rejected on the ground that the respondents did not fulfil the condition in clause 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re us, on transfer as these deemed appeals. 2. We have heard Smt. Dolly Saxena for the appellant and Shri K.P. Joshi, Advocate for the respondents. 3. Shri Joshi relies upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in Balasahib Desai Sahakari Sakar Karkhana Ltd. v. Union of India (1982 E.L.T. 886 Bombay) in support of his contention that the ground on which the claim for exemption had been reject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the preceding five years and has produced sugar in each year of the preceding five years. We are unable to accept the interpretation suggested by the Department and accepted by the authorities below in our judgment, the petitioners are entitled to the advantage of the notification and the Superintendent of Central Excise was clearly in error in denying the rebate of duty sought by the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n No. 35/76 dated 25-2-1976 being prima facie applicable to the assessees factory the assessee would be barred from availing of benefit of notification No. 108/78 by virtue of clause 6 of the said notification No. 108/78. 5. As pointed out for the respondents this ground for denial of benefits had not been raised before the Assistant Collector or the Appellate Collector and hence not considere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
