9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (11) TMI 626X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Respondent. [Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. - The revenue has filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 10-2-1993 passed by the Collector (Appeals) allowing the refund of central excise duty for the past six months from the date of filing the refund claim. 2. When the matter was called, none appeared on behalf of the respondents, M/s. Dynamic Engg. Works. In fact, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowed by them, the benefit of notification cannot be extended to them. In support of his contention, he relies upon the decision in the case of Kirloskar Bros. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Pune reported in 1997 (94) E.L.T. 176 and C.C.E., Bombay v. Electrical Engg. Co. reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 434. 4. We have considered the submissions of the Revenue and perused the records. 5. We observe from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factory and irrespective of the fact that the parts of power driven pumps were classified under sub-heading 84.81 or 84.13, the benefit of notification was available from the time the classification list was filed. The respondents have not claimed the benefit of this notification nor any steps were taken to fulfil the conditions set out in the notification. It was held in Kirloskar Bros. Ltd. cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
