9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (4) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. These bunch of 17 appeals, although filed by different assessees, covers the same point and is therefore taken up together for disposal in this common order. 2. We have heard Shri M.N. Sayed for the appellants and Shri B.K. Choubey for the Revenue. 3. The appellants Draw Texturised Partially Oriented Yarn. The inputs and outputs were covered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion No. 24/94. Show cause notices were issued alleging that during the period 25-4-94 to 19-5-94, the benefit under para 1(a)(i) was wrongly taken and the differential duty was demanded. In all cases the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the common order upheld the confirmation. Hence the present appeals. 4. As observed above, Notification No. 1/93 gave two options. The first option was taken by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty. Differential duty was demanded. The Tribunal observed that even if the declaration had been filed, it was not obligatory that they should have availed of the benefit of the Modvat credit. Even if they had paid the duty at concessional rate quite wrongly, the alternate benefit available under clause (ii) would still be available to them. 6. Shri B.K. Choubey submits that at no time in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of Natraj Paints Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise. [1994 (74) E.L.T. 344 (Tribunal)] as well as K.F. Beltings Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1994 (72) E.L.T. 891 (Tribunal)]. 8. We thus find that where the alternate beneficial avenue was open to the assessees, the order of the Commissioner following only one option was not sustainable. This bunch of appeal is allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
