2002 (2) TMI 553

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lication is dismissed being without merit. With the consent of learned JDR, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits. None has come present on behalf of the respondents, in spite of service of notice. 3. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 29-6-2001 vide which he has reversed the order of the adjudicating authority a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... upon to pay the duty of Rs. 2,41,612.80. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty, although the respondents agitated before him that the shawls which they were clearing, were in ready to use conditions without stitching/hemming/whipping. The Commissioner (Appeals) through the impugned order had accepted the version of the appellants and reversed the order-in-original. 5. The bare perusal o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... further processing before becoming marketable. But they had failed to discharge this burden. The Commissioner (Appeals) in our view has rightly allowed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 65/87, dated 1-3-1987 to the respondents. Therefore, the impugned order passed by him is perfectly valid and does not suffer from any legal infirmity. 5. In view of the discussion made above, we do not f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X