9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (11) TMI 209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ati, Vice President]. The issue in the appeal relates to the benefit of Notification No. 184/86, dated 1-3-1986. Under this notification the goods which are manufactured by the specified units for supply to the Ministry of Defence are exempted from payment of duty. The appellants do not figure in the list of the manufacturers specified in the said notification. 2. The ld. Advocate for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd supply of goods to the Ministry of Defence for official purposes, is very clear. When goods are manufactured by other ancillary units and sub-contractors for this purpose, and are sent back to the five units for further processing, fitting, manufacture etc. and for eventual clearance from the five main units, there is absolutely no reason for denying them the benefit of this exemption notificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has pleaded that this letter was not cited before the ld. lower authority when the order was passed. 4. The ld. JDR for the department has no instructions as to the applicability of this letter. He has pleaded the status of this letter also will be required to be considered as this letter has been issued by the Chairman and whether the same could be construed as the instructions of the Board. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for [its] binding nature. In the case of CC v. Usha Motor Industries reported in 1997 (94) E.L.T. 460 (S.C.), the Hon ble Supreme Court has held in the case of the instructions by the Board, the authorities below would be bound by the same. 7. We are not aware of the background in which the Chairman had issued the letter and whether he had the concurrence of the Board, who are the statutory auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
