2006 (12) TMI 351

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Appellant. Shri Ajay Saxena, S.D.R., for the Respondent. [Order per : K.K. Agarwal, Member (T)]. - The brief facts of the case are that the appellants have claimed benefit from Central Excise duty as a new unit in terms of Para 3(a) of Notification 56/2002 dated 14-11-2002 whereby exemption from Central Excise duty to industrial unit located in the State Jammu-Kashmir in the areas specifie .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... idered by the lower authority and they were accordingly denied the exemption. 3. The learned Advocate for the appellant submits that earlier vide Notification 56/2002 besides others, Khasra No. 394 was also notified and Khasra 394 comprise of SIDCO Industrial Complex, Baribrahmna only and therefore even if SIDCO Industrial Complex, Baribrahmna was not mentioned by name in Notification 56/200 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rea specified is EPIP, Kartholi, Baribrahmna along with their Khasra number which includes Khasra No. 394 also. It is the appellants' contention that Khasra No. 394 does not belong to EPIP, Kartholi but only to SIDCO Industrial Complex, Baribrahmna and therefore once the Khasra number was specified the benefit of the exemption should not have been denied taking into view the subsequent amendment w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X