9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 529X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h, Consultant, for the Appellant. Shri Anil Kumar, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J) (Oral)]. - Both appeals pertain to common assessee and they are taken up together for disposal as per law. Although the items used within the factory for manufacture of final products is different in both the appeals but ultimately the question is whether they are exempted or they a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egard for the period April 2000 to July 2004 by show cause notice dated 3-3-2005 in Order-in-Original No. 8/2005-06 dated 29-7-2005, is not correct in law. They rely on the ratio of the following rulings. (a) RINL v. CCE, Visakhapatnam - 2002(150) E.L.T. 743. (b) RINL v. CCE, Visakhapatnam - 2003 (161) E.L.T. 285 affirmed by the Apex Court as reported in 2004 (163) E.L.T. A53 (S.C.). (c) Tata E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Circular No. 17/93-CX.8 dated 6-2-1993 and No. 33/33/94-CX.8 dated 4-5-1994. 4. The learned Counsel submits that the issue is covered in their favour and the Tribunal at the prima facie stage while hearing the stay applications accepted their prayer and they have been granted full waiver by Stay Order Nos. 541/2006 dated 12-6-2006 and No. 1034/2006, dated 27-9-2006. He submits that the ter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e submits that the orders passed are correct in law. Further, the written objections does not refer to the citations relied by the appellants, which deals directly on this point including the circulars referred to. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions and find that the appellants have taken correct contentions and requires to be accepted. We have perused the terms of the Notificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
