9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (12) TMI 346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Appellant. Shri A.K. Jain, JDR, for the Respondents. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. - According to the applicants, the error in the Tribunal's Final Order holding that the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification 202/88, dated 20-5-1988 is not available to M.S. bars on the ground that the inputs for such bars i.e. MS cuttings (re-rollable materials) was cleared to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Bench during the hearing of the appeal, that the issue was decided against them by the Larger Bench decision in the case of Machine Builders, that the Tribunal has considered this decision and held that the ratio of that decisions squarely applicable to the present case. He submits that no error arises in not considering a decision which was not cited before the Bench. Lastly, he submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, it cannot be said that there has been any mistake in applying the Machine Builders' decision to the facts of the present case, although the expression used in Notification 202/88 is "nil duty paid". Further, we agree with the learned DR that there is no mistake in not considering a decision which was not cited before us (the decision in the case of Nova Steels). Clearly what the applicants are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
