9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (6) TMI 304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e up for hearing, ld. Advocate, Shri K.K. Anand, submitted that the main issue in this case having been decided by the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Machine Builders Others v. Collector of Central Excise [1996 (83) E.L.T. 576 (T) = 1996 (12) RLT 817], the main appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. After examining the record it appears that the ld. Advoc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isfied or not. The burden of proving the eligibility of the inputs could not be shifted by the Revenue to the assessees. 3. Apart from the submissions on merit ld. Advocate also claimed that the show cause notice having been issued on 13-9-93 for the period from March, 1993 to August, 1993, could not cover the period beyond 6 months i.e. for the period March, 1993 since no allegation were made i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p. Therefore, there is no force in the lower authority holding that the scrap consisted of broken machinery parts etc. This belief is apparently borrowed from the Trade Notice No. 19/93 of the Kanpur Central Excise Collectorate. This plea was repeatedly made before the original authority but she did not even examine the various submissions made by the assessees before her. On these observations I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
