1997 (4) TMI 218

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er per : G.R. Sharma, Member (T)]. Shri M.L. Gupta, ld. Consultant, narrating the facts of the case submits that the appellants have two units one at Mayapuri and the other at Mangolpuri. That in the Mayapuri Unit they are manufacturing electric motors whereas at the Mangolpuri Unit they are manufacturing electric fans. That in respect of electric fans they were availing Modvat credit wherea .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the respondents had claimed the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 in respect of dies whereas they had claimed Modvat benefit in respect of raw aluminium casting under sub-heading 8714.00 i.e. they were not claiming both benefits in respect of the same items. Therefore, they should be given the full benefit of the exemption as would be available otherwise, as if the Modvat credit is not being .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The ld. Consultant submitted that the facts of the case are exactly identical to the facts of the cases cited and relied upon by him and therefore prays that looking to the decisions cited and relied upon by him, the appeal may be allowed. 2. Shri Satam Singh, ld. SDR, reiterated the findings of the lower authorities. 3. Heard the submissions of both sides. We find that the Tribunal in some o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X