9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (12) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Respondents. [Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. The issue involved in this appeal filed by Revenue is whether the benefit of Notification No. 23/89 was available in respect of the cement manufactured by the Respondents, M/s. Dhar Cement Ltd. 2. When the matter was called, none was present on behalf of the respondents nor was there any request for adjournment in spite of not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MTs per annum which was later on cancelled; that the respondents had made an application for approval of the capacity of their plant at 300 TPD which was duly approved by the Ministry of Industry vide Letter Nos. 2-5/87 C.M., dated 18-3-1987. The learned D.R. further submitted that the Collector (Appeals) erred in extending the benefit of Notification to the Respondents on the ground that the Mini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied by Govt. of India, Ministry of Industries Nos. 2-5/87 CCM, dated 18-3-1987 and their Managing Director had also stated this fact in an affidavit dated 1-12-1988 submitted to the said Superintending Engineer. The learned DR contended that the respondents cannot take two different contentions before two Governmental authorities and as their licensed capacity exceeded 200 TPD, the benefit of Not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly gone by the fact that licenced capacity of 300 TPD was not endorsed on the licence. He did not take into consideration the fact that the Respondents had themselves made an application for approval of the capacity of their plant at 300 TPD and the Govt. conveyed the approval to the recognition of the installed capacity of 300 TPD under letter dated 18-3-1987, provided this did not result in inst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
