1995 (2) TMI 233

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Shri Somesh Arora, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : K.S. Venkataramani, Member (T)]. These are applications for dispensing with the pre-deposit of duty demand Rs. 2,89,427/- and Rs. 6,279/-. The learned Counsel for the applicants Shri Rajesh Chhibber submitted that the demand has been raised holding that the second unit of the applicants manufacturer of cranes and sub-assembly is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t cannot deny them the benefit of the exemption in the subsequent years. The learned Counsel in this context, relied upon the Tribunal decision in the case of Accura Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1992 (58) E.L.T. 98 (Tribunal). The learned Counsel further submitted that they have also since obtained endorsement of their SSI Certificate on the second unit. Shri Somesh Arora .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e by both the sides. We find that the issue relates to the eligibility of the applicants in their manufacture activities carried on in the second unit for exemption under Notification No. 175/86. In this context, the fact for the classification list for 1987-88 giving the particulars of both the units and the interest in their second unit, having been scrutinised and duly approved by the Departmen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X