2008 (1) TMI 761

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : D.N. Panda, Member (J)]. -  Heard both sides. 2. The appellant-company is a small-scale unit. They manufactured parts of arms falling under sub-heading 9305.00 and supplied the same to Defence Establishments. The appellants have argued that they all along enjoyed the small-scale exemption, for the impugned goods, which with the issue of Notific .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in Mahaprabhu Moulding Works (cited supra) has been passed relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of W.P.I.L. Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut - 2005 (181) E.L.T. 359 (S.C.) which has held that the exemption cannot be said to have been withdrawn when it was the consistent policy of the Government to grant exemption, as reflected from the fact that the latter Notification continues the exe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X