2002 (10) TMI 509

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Peeran, Member (J]. - Both these Revenue Appeals are against the common Order-in-Appeal No. 245/97, dated 19-11-1997 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Trichy. In the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the benefit of Notification No. 35/95, dated 16-3-95 as amended by Notification No. 84/95, dated 18-5-95 available to the assessee. This is challenged by the Revenue on the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nged. 2. Appearing on behalf of the Revenue Shri C. Mani to ld. DR pointed out in the proviso of the notification and contended that the Commissioner has committed an error in extending the benefit of the notification without examining the proviso of the notification. He pointed out that the assessee has the facility of manufacturing single yarn and therefore, the benefit of notification is not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Commissioner (Appeals) has overlooked the proviso to the notification which reads Provided that the exemption contained hereinabove relating to S. No. 1 or 2 shall not apply to clearances of yarn from a factory having facilities (including plant and equipment) for producing single yarn. In view of the clear exclusion of the benefit to a factory having facilities for producing single yarn, the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X