9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 768X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... char which is unburnt coal arising as by-products in the course of manufacture of final product and used within the factory in the manufacture of electricity and claimed exemption of duty under Notification No. 67/95 which was denied under the impugned order on the ground that part of the electricity generated is not being used in the manufacture of final product. This is the subject-matter of the appeal. 3. Personal hearing was fixed on 8-2-2001 which was attended by Shri Ravi Holani who reiterated the submissions already made in the appeal memo. It was pointed out that the dolo char and char are by-product generated during the burning of coal for the manufacture of the final product and used along with other fuels like waste heat an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The major inputs for the generation of electricity are waste heat and coal. They submitted that the adjudicating authority has not considered this aspect and has rejected their claim summarily. It has also been submitted that their case has been decided without issue of S.C.N. and a simple letter given to them for fixing personal hearing is the only opportunity to them to defend their case. It has also been argued by them that inputs so used for generation of steam which is also an excisable product and in turn is used for the generation of electricity. Keeping this point in mind, their case is also covered by Notification No. 67/95 as total quantity of steam generated are used in the generation of electricity in the same factory. 4. I h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... luding char and dolo char, therefore, the total electricity generated can not be held to have been generated by using input char and dolo char only. The denial of benefit of the exemption notification, supra, without considering the above by adjudicating authority is not legal and just. 5. From the above I find that the contention of the appellant that they were not given a proper S.C.N. before rejection of their claim is sustainable and corroborated by the fact that the appellant was given only a letter dated 29-7-1997 received by them on 6-8-1997 fixing date of personal hearing on 12-8-1997 with a proposal to deny the benefit of notification, with in a such short time, is neither a proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant nor is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
