2005 (1) TMI 556

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... This appeal was filed by the Department, represented before us by the learned JDR. No representation for the respondents. The notice of hearing issued to them has returned unserved. As the issue involved in this case lies within a short compass and already stands covered by orders of this Tribunal, we think, the appeal requires to be finally disposed of. 2. The respondents had manufactured 30 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as exceeded, the dis-entitlement for the concession under the Notification was operative only for the month in which the limit was exceeded. The Collector (Appeals) was following earlier Orders-in-Appeal passed in the case of other match manufacturers. His decision is under challenge in the present appeal of the Revenue. 3. Learned JDR submits that the above question was decided in favour of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the above view in the case of M/s. Kutir Diasalai Udyog U.S.S. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut reported in 1985 (22) E.L.T. 80 (Tri.) = 1986 (6) ECR 396. Following the case law, we hold that the respondents were not entitled to the benefit of concession under the Notification for the financial year 1992-1993 on account of having exceeded the production limit of 3000 units in September .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X