9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Respondent. [Order per : G.R. Sharma, Member (T)]. The facts of the case leading to the present appeal are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of P.V.C. Compounds. They filed a C/List effective from 1-4-1993 claiming the benefit of Notification No. 14/92-C.E., dated 1-3-1992 and the assessment of their goods at 35% ad valorem. The Asstt. Collector. held that the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ld. Counsel submits that a perusal of this notification will show that serial number 2 and 3 of the Table annexed to the notification read as under :- TABLE Sl. No. Heading No. Sub-heading No. Description of goods Rate Condition 01 .... ...... ... .... ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any option whatsoever. Alternatively, the ld. Counsel submits that even if it was decided that there was a question of option, the option squarely rested with the appellants. In support of this contention, he cited and relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Modern Engineering v. C.C.E., Delhi reported in 1996 (15) RLT 329. The ld. Counsel submits that since they were working under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplicable to the goods manufactured by the appellants. The only dispute was that the deptt. alleged that since there was an exemption Notification No. 1/93 available to SSI unit, the appellants should have availed the benefit of this Notification. However, we find that simultaneously, the benefit of Notification No. 14/92-C.E. was also available to the appellants. It was the option of the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
