9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (10) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. [Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. The appellants manufactured refractory bricks and mortars. They were consuming these articles for lining the furnaces in which such bricks and mortars were manufactured. They claimed benefit of Notification No. 217/86 as amended for such captive use of the products. The classification list in which the benefit was claimed was appr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ully considered the submissions made by both sides and have also perused the notification. 4. Shri Devnath refers us to the order of this very Bench bearing number 693/97-D, dated 11-7-1997 where the benefit of Notification No. 118/75 was extended to the same goods used in the same manner by the same appellants. It is his submissions that the ratio of this judgment would have a direct applicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red under Rule 56G(1), in respect of these two inputs, the benefit of this notification is not available; is wholly wrong. However, in interpretating the exclusion clause, the judgments delivered in relation to the exclusion under Rule 57A would become material. 6. In the show cause notice in the case before us it has been suggested that the contested goods would fall under the exclusion categor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement used for lining of furnaces were eligible inputs under Rule 57A. Since the wording in the exclusion clause is identical, the ratio of the judgment is directly applicable in interpretating the cited notification. 7. In view of our holding that refractory bricks and refractory mortars were goods used in the manufacture of refractory bricks and mortars and in view of our finding that procedur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
