9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cally by this very Bench in the case of Dhanraj Industries Vs. CCE Vapi [2011 (4) TMI 397 (Tri)]in favour of the appellants and therefore for calculating the first clearances which are exempt, there is no need to take clearances under another notification into consideration and the restriction in para 3 of Notification No. 10/99 is not applicable and the Notification No. 8/99 also has a similar co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vapi 2010 (251) ELT 436 (Tri-Ahmd.). After hearing both sides for some time, we find it that the issue is now squarely covered in favour of the assessee. Hence, we allow the application for out of turn hearing and take up the appeal for disposal. 3. We find that the issue involved is regarding simultaneous availment of benefit of Notification No.8/99-CE, dt.28.2.99 and Notification No.10/99-CE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the appeals themselves can be taken up for decision. Further, the application for modification of the stay order also has to be allowed in view of the discussion above. Accordingly, after allowing the application for modification of stay order and allowing the stay petition, we take up the appeal for decision. 6.We find that as pointed out by the learned advocate, the decision in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her, after going through the notifications and the decisions of the Tribunal we find that the subsequent decisions have interpreted the notifications correctly and there is only one decision which is in favour of the Revenue and that happens to be the earliest decision. In view of the fact that subsequently there are many decisions on the issue which are in favour of the appellant and which have t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
