9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (7) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , for the Respondents. [Order per : Lajja Ram, Member (T)]. In this appeal filed by M/s. East India Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the `appellants ), the issue for our consideration is, whether the appellants were eligible for the benefit of exemption from payment of Central Excise duty under Notification No. 201/87-C.E., dated 3-9-1987 in respect of the printing frame ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i M.P. Singh, JDR on 9-6-1999 and had perused the records. 3. The Notification No. 201/87-C.E., dated 3-9-1987 (as amended) is extracted below : In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts printing frames falling under heading No. 84.42 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sive Fabrics Ltd. were a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. They had their own balance sheet and profit loss account. They had claimed depreciation for plant machinery. They had made payment to and had provisions for their employees. The appellants were also a separate company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. There is nothing on record to show that M/s. East India E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o had taken them on lease. Lease is the right to use property for a certain length of time by paying rent. In the present case, only certain specified machines were taken on lease. The whole of the factory was not taken on lease. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not consider that M/s. East India Exclusive Fabrics Ltd. were the other factory of the appellants company. The app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
