9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yur Shroff, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Samir Chitkara, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri Mayur Shroff, learned Advocate and Shri Samir Chitkara, learned SDR we find that the dispute in the present appeal relates to admissibility of benefit of Notification No. 67/95-C.E. in respect of moulds, whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. BPL Electronics v. C.C.E., Bangalore [1994 (71) E.L.T. 801 (Tribunal)] involving identical dispute. The said decision stands distinguished by the Commissioner as recorded in para 14.5 of his order. We would like to reproduce the said para of the impugned order : 14.5 I have gone through the case records, submission made by the assessee and the case laws refe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sal India Limited, I find that the decision of Hon ble Tribunal is based on the decision of Hon ble Tribunal in case of M/s. BPL Electronics. As regards the decision of Hon ble Tribunal in case of M/s. Ashok Iron Works Ltd. v. CCE, Belgam, I find that the issue involved in case of M/s. Ashok Iron Works Ltd. is related to captive consumption of patterns/jigs/fixtures etc. and availability of exempt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... flimsy ground. The difference in number of Notification, when the contents of the Notification are identical, cannot be made the basis for justifiable distinction. In any way, we find that the Tribunal s decision in the case of Elcon Clipsal India Ltd. [2002 (146) E.L.T. 360 (Tri.-Del.) was in respect of the same notification and involving the same product as moulds. The same does not stand follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
