2008 (7) TMI 691

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : M. Veeraiyan, Member (T) (for the Bench)]. These three appeals arise out of the common order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 273-275/RM/CE/JPR-II/2003 dated 8-2-2004. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Relevant facts, in brief, are as follows :- (a) The first appellant Sunita Minechem Industries, a 100% EOU, is a manufacturer of guar gum powder. They .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Appeals). 4. The appellants contention that the proviso to 3(1) is not attracted in their case and only the main section 3(1) shall be applicable, has not been accepted by the authorities below. 5.1 The learned advocate submits that prior to 21-3-97, all goods manufactured were exported except some quantity of guar gum powder which was cleared in local market without payment of duty. Accordin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ribunal, matter was referred to Larger Bench and in the case of Himalaya International Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh-I [2003 (154) E.L.T. 580 (Tri.-LB)], it was held that DTA clearance in excess of the permission granted by the Development Commissioner was not governed by Section 3(1) of Act. Matter was again considered by the Larger Bench in the case of Jaipur Golden Transport Company Ltd. [2007 (215) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X