1998 (5) TMI 138

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... : Shri S.R. Madhavamurthy, Consultant, for the Appellant. Shri R. Saroop, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice U.L. Bhat, President]. The dispute in the appeal is whether Digital Automatic Exchanges DATE-36 manufactured and cleared by the appellant would attract concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 73/90. The Assistant Collector and Commissioner (Appeals) held a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uthorities held that appellant failed to prove that the subject exchanges cleared by the appellant would fall within the description Rural Automatic Exchanges (upto 512 Ports) . There is no dispute that the expression `port is used to indicate the capacity of the exchange to handle calls. There is also no dispute that there is no separate exchange which can be used only in rural areas and which .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on as upto 512 Ports and the purchase order indicates the capacity as 36 ports. 3. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the lower authorities were in error in denying the appellant benefit of Notification. It is not disputed that if the appellant was entitled for the benefit of Notification, there was no differential duty to pay. 4. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X