9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Shri P. Gopi, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)]. - The respondent-assessee is a manufacturer of Straw Board which is liable to Central Excise duty. During the year 1994-95, they were availing themselves of the exemption under Notification No. 1/93. This notification allows concessional central excise rates to small-scale units. The clearance of goods produce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s exclusion, the respondent availed himself of the concessional rate under Notification No. 22/94 in respect of goods cleared w.e.f. 16-3-1995. Therefore, Show Cause Notice was issued proposing to recover a short-levy amount of Rs. 44,256/- for the period 16-3-1995 to 31-3-1995 on account of simultaneous availment of Notification Nos. 1/93 and 22/94 by the assessee during the financial year 1994-9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fications which is beneficial to him. This finding was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) also. The present appeal of the Revenue is directed against those orders. 2. We have perused the records and have considered the submissions made by both sides. We find merit in the contention of the Revenue. Amendment dated 16th March, 1995 to Notification No. 22/94 specifically provided that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts of the present case. They applied only to cases where it was open to the assessee to choose from among different exemption schemes. In the present case, such a choice was not available. The exemptions were mutually exclusive. The Revenue is right in their contention that the orders passed by the lower authorities were erroneous. 3. In the view we have taken above, the appeal of the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
