2001 (8) TMI 1194

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Arun Mehta, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri T.D. Bodade, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility to the benefit of Notification 118/75 of the refractory materials manufactured by the appellant in its factory at Taloja and not found to have been used in that factory. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the refractories were used by the appellant in the manufacture of excisable goods at its other two factories. This rejection having been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the matter is before us. 2. The counsel for the appellant is no doubt right that the decision of the Tribunal have held that the omission to comply with the condition is no ground for denying the benefit of notifica .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... be available to the refractories used at Dewas and Thane. However that was not the issue before the Collector. The notice upon which he was adjudicating proposed penalty on the manufacturer for removing goods from the Taloja factory for manufacturing goods without a licence and not maintaining the prescribed records. The notice did not call upon the appellant to pay duty. The observations of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X