9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (11) TMI 225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of cross objection filed by them as well as written submissions made by them. We, therefore, heard Shri R.K. Sharma, learned SDR, and perused the records. The Asstt. Collector had approved the classification list filed by the Respondents in which they had claimed the benefit of Notification No. 175/86, as amended. The appeal filed by the Department was rejected by the Collector (Appeals), under the impugned order, holding that the proviso inserted by Notification No. 55/92, dated 31-3-1992 in Notification No. 175/86 would affect only those manufacturers who had at some time in the past had availed of the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 in terms of clause (a) of the proviso to para 4 and the eligibility to the benefit of Notification in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned SDR, submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of D.B. Shingodia v. C.C.E., Bombay, 1999 (32) RLT 477 (T), and C.C.E., Bombay v. Bamboat Press (P) Ltd., Final Order No. 750/98-C, dated 3-8-1998, and Duropolyprene (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., 1998 (101) E.L.T. 475 (T). 5. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The Respondents have contended that the authorization issued by Collector is not correct. Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act provides that the Commissioner may, if he is of opinion that an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not legal or proper, direct any Central Excise Officer to appeal on his behalf to the Appellate Tribunal against such order. The Commissioner has is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use (a) of the said proviso in any of the preceding financial year. 7. It is apparent from this proviso that any unit, whose clearance of goods had exceeded Rs. 7.5 lakhs in any preceding financial year and was not registered as small scale unit, would not be eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 175/86, as amended. The Revenue has contended that the Respondents were not registered as a small scale unit with the Director of Industries and the value of clearance in the preceding financial year had exceeded Rs. 7.5 lakhs. These facts had neither been rebutted in the cross objection nor in the written submissions filed by the Respondents. In view of these facts, the Respondents are not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
