9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (7) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per : G.P. Agarwal, Member (J)]. These are three appeals. Two Appeals bearing No. E/2005/88-C and E/2866/89-C have been filed by M/s. Khandelwal Lab (P) Ltd. whereas the third appeal bearing No. E/3964/88-C is by the Revenue against that part of the order-in-original No. AMP-570/BIII-370/88 (which is the subject matter of Appeal No. E/2866/89-C filed by the assessee also) whereby ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssification list for the said products claiming exemption from excise duty under Notification No. 122/86, dated 1-3-1986. However, it was rejected by both the authorities below wrongly interpreting the said Notification. Continuing further she submitted that their said product is covered by Sl. No. 16 of the Annexure appended to Notification No. 122/86. She highlighted that the said Notification N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the inception of Notification No. 122/86-C.E. She also cited the cases of Parke Davis (India) Ltd., Bombay v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, 1984 (15) E.L.T. 231 wherein it was held that strict reading of an exemption Notification is desirable of all who implement and interpret a taxation law. Case of Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs - 1992 (58) E.L.T. 105 was also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, would be effective from 21-11-1986. In the case of Johnson Johnson Ltd, Bombay v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-III, supra, this Tribunal held that the amended Notification No. 455/86-C.E. is of a clarificatory nature and the intention of the Government of India was to grant exemption from the inception of Notification No. 122/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986. Consequently, the appeal a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeals bearing No. E/2005/86-C and E/2866/89-C filed by M/s. Khandelwal Lab (P) Ltd. with consequential reliefs to the appellants, if any, according to law. As a sequel thereof the question involved in the Appeal No. E/3964/88-C filed by the Revenue as to whether the demand was to be restricted to six months or not as held by the Collector (Appeals) does not require any consideration at our end. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
