2003 (2) TMI 363

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vocate with R.S. Rana, Advocate, for the Appellant. S/Shri M. Chandrasekharan, Sr. Advocate with K.J. Singh, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Member (J)]. - Revenue filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The issue involved in this appeal is in respect of benefit of Notification No. 60/91-C.E., dated 25-7-91 which exem .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... onus is on the respondents to show that they were complying with the conditions laid down in the notification. The contention of the revenue is also that the Commissioner in the impugned order, had not mentioned whether the record had been verified so as to lead to conclusion of using more than 25 per cent fly ash in the final product. 5. The contention of the respondents is that the respond .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ideration the chemical examiner's report, the record maintained by the respondents, results of pilot experiment and report of Dr. A.S.R. Rai, Prof. of Civil Engg. IIT, Kanpur gave a finding of fact. Revenue is not disputing the other factors taking into consideration by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The only contention of the revenue is that the Commissioner, without any evidence, held that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X