9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (2) TMI 365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . [Order]. By the impugned order the Commissioner has denied the benefit of exemption Notification No. 165/90, dated 17-12-1990 in respect of Cupro Nickel and Aluminium Magnesia strips used for the production of coins on the ground that the clearances effected prior to 7-2-1991 i.e., under GP 1 Nos. 5, 6, 34 35 are those which are issued even prior to application and issuance of CT 2 C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supreme Court and that of Tribunal. 4. In the case of Hiranyakeshi Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit v. C.C.E. as reported in 1989 (39) E.L.T. 658, the Tribunal held that the benefit of Notification No. 118/75 is not deniable for non following Chapter X procedure so long as essential requirements to establish entitlement to such benefit is satisfied. The Tribunal also held in the case of Oil Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the benefit of Notification No. 71/77 cannot be turned down on technical ground of non-compliance with Rule 56A procedure when the assessee contested the correctness of the classification and dutiability of the intermediate product, thus they could not have ordinarily complied with the procedure of Rule 56A of Central Excise Rules. 6. In the case of Thermax Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C. as reported in 1992 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It further held that this concession further does not entitle the assessee to concession claimed in both these appeals before it. But its entitlement will depend on whether the purchaser is the holder of L-6 licence (or CT 2) certificate or not. The ratio is that a person holding L-6 licence (CT 2 Certificate) for him, the benefit cannot be denied. The Hon ble Supreme Court clarified in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
