9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (6) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er per : V.T. Raghavachari, Member (J).]. - The claim for rebate in terms of Notification No. 108/78-CE, dated 28-4-1978 of the appellants M/s. Pravara SSK Ltd. in respect of their excess production during the period May 1978 to September 1978 was rejected by the Collector of Central Excise Pune. On appeal the said order was set aside by the Central Board of Excise and Customs under its order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appellants were not entitled to benefit under Notification 108/78-C.E. since, according to him, benefit of Notification 36/76-C.E. was available to the appellants and, under Para 6 of Notification 108/78-C.E., benefit under the said notification would not be available to the appellants in the above circumstances. This appeal is against the said order. 2. We have heard Shri K.P. Joshi, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not entitled to benefit under Notification 36/76-CE. Shri Sachar on the other hand contends that the facts of the present case are different from the facts in the case cited. He points out that whereas in the cited case the assessee had not been granted any certificate at all under Notification 36/76-CE in spite of their applying for the same the present appellants had been issued a certificate o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e concerned) that the Directorate failed to issue a certificate though applied for by the appellants. Since the notification itself was rescinded on 16.8.1978 the Directorate evidently did not pursue the matter further in respect of the letter of the appellants for grant of such certificate dated 1-8-1978. 5. In the circumstances we feel that the ratio of the decision in 1987 (28) E.L.T. 553 ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
