1997 (12) TMI 295

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... llants. Shri R.S. Sangia, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. The appellants in this case requested for a decision on merit which we proceed to do after hearing Shri R.S. Sangia, learned JDR. 2. Notification No. 280/77, dated 12-8-1977 exempted woollen and acrylic spun yarn containing non-cellulosic fibre in the form of wastes or in the form of fibre p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... had failed to produce the evidence to substantiate their claim for notification and confirmed the demand. The Collector (Appeals) having upheld his findings on the same logic, the present appeal is before us. 3. We have carefully perused the subject notification. 4. It is well settled that the claimant has to substantiate his claim to the benefit of the notification. This was so held by the S .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ve been put to use by the Chemical Examiner. In other words, the opinion given is not sufficient to negate the evidence placed on record by the assessees. We find that the burden cast upon them to avail of the benefit of the notification was sufficiently discharged by the assessees. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and direct consequential relief to the extent warrant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X