9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (2) TMI 536X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent. [Order per : Lajja Ram, Member (T)]. These are two appeals filed by the Revenue being aggrieved by a common order-in-appeal dated 27-2-92 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. As in both the appeals common issue is for consideration they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The respondents in one case M/s. Singh Plas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had contended that when the goods were covered under Sl. No. 39 of the aforesaid Table, it was not for the manufacturer to pay duty against Sl. No. 40 of the said Table. 3. We have heard Shri H.K. Jain, SDR for the Revenue. Shri T. Vishwanathan, Advocate is present for M/s. Thermopak Industries. No one is present for M/s. Singh Plastic. 4. We have gone through the exemption Notification No. 53 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the duty and not avail the full exemption which in any case was subject to the condition as given in Column 5 of the Table annexed to the exemption notification. 5. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had observed that in the facts and circumstances of the case the benefit of Sl. No. 40 could not be denied to the manufacturers. We do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the Collect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
