2003 (12) TMI 524

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ant Kotikar, SDR for the Respondent. [Order per : C. Satapathy, Member (T)]. Heard both sides. The dispute in this case relates to claim by the appellants to exemption under Notification No. 1/95-C.E., dated 4-1-1995. Shri S. Surinarayanan, learned Advocate for the appellants states that the impugned goods are eligible for the said exemption and that the requirement for recommendation by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... an be presumed to have been satisfied when the Ministry itself has allowed such procurement. He also states that the procurement of the impugned DG Set was done against a CT3 certificate No. 2/97-98 which was issued by the Jurisdictional Superintendent of the Central Excise when the unit was under physical control. He also submits that the appellants received advice from the Development Commission .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion for indigenous procurement and they were also issued with a CT3 certificate by the concerned Range Superintendent for procurement of duty free DG set indigenously when the unit was under the physical control. Besides, since the Ministry itself in its letter dated 4-11-1997 has permitted said duty free procurement it can be presumed that the Board of Approval appointed by the Ministry would als .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X