9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated as under : 3. The appellants filed classification list No. 14/92 in respect of their products under Chapter Heading 84.31 of CETA. In that list they claimed exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986 as amended for their certain products mentioned at S. Nos. 357 and 358 of the Notification. They were served with a show cause notice dated 16-12-1992 vide which they were called upon to show cause as to why exemption under the said notification be not denied to them in respect of those products and why their classification list be not approved accordingly. They contested the correctness of that show cause notice on the ground that the provisions o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hem for third party and no evidence was also placed on record before the adjudicating authority and as such had been rightly denied the benefit of notification in question as the aggregate value of their clearances during the preceding financial year exceeded Rs. 2 crores. 8. We have heard both the sides and gone through the record. 9. The issue involved in the appeal is regarding the availability of benefit of Notification No. 175/86 to the appellants. Since the aggregate value of their clearances of the preceding financial year exceeded Rs. 2 crores they had not been extended the benefit of notification in question. 10. The plea of the appellants is that the value of the branded goods was to be excluded in terms of para 3 of the Not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion list and to take somersault to urge that they had been manufacturing branded goods during the preceding financial year; just with a view to claim the benefit of notification in question and to avoid the payment of duty on the clearances made beyond the prescribed limit under that notification. 11. The learned counsel has, no doubt, referred to letters allegedly sent by Airtechnic Corporation, Bombay dated 12-10-1990 and 30-5-1991 and also copies of GP. 1 in order to substantiate his argument that the appellants did manufacture branded goods during the preceding financial year and supplied the same to that Corporation, but the letters and the GP. 1 were never produced before the adjudicating authority. No authenticity or correctness c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
