1997 (12) TMI 260

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 in this case were availing of the benefit of Notification No. 175/86. Part of the goods manufactured by them were with the brand name of another person who himself was a manufacturer and was also availing of the benefit of the same notification. The Assistant Collector in his original order held that since the other person was not manufacturing any goods at the material time, he .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cient notice was served upon them. 4. We have carefully gone through the facts of the case and the arguments made on behalf of the Revenue. 5. We find the logic of the Collector that a manufacturer does not cease to be a manufacturer merely because he has not manufactured anything during the particular period, to be unassailable. We are satisfied that the assessees were correctly given the ben .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X