2003 (6) TMI 353

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er]. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 25-10-2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original confirming the duty demand of Rs. 7,19,807/- with penalty of Rs. 40,000/-. 2. The issue involved in the present appeal is availability of the benefit of Notification No. 9/99 during the financial year 1999-2000 to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h below the value prescribed limit of Rs. 300 lakhs. They being entitled to the benefit of Notification 9/99, dated 28-2-99, filed declaration w.e.f. 1-4-99, the date from which the above said Notification was made effective, under Rule 173B of the Rules. The benefit of this Notification has been denied to them on the ground that their aggregate clearances value during the preceding year (1998-99) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the Notification. The authorities below have apparently erred in taking into consideration the value of those clearances and denied the benefit of the Notification in question No. 9/99 to the appellants. They are, in my view, entitled to the benefit of this Notification. 4. In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside. The appeal 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