2012 (10) TMI 343

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.K. Gaule, Member (T)]. - Heard both sides. 2. The appellant filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 21/KOL-II/2006 dated 18-4-2006 whereby Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the lower adjudicating authority's order. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under chapter .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appellant challenged the same. Learned Commissioner(appeals) upheld the lower adjudicating authority's order. Hence the appeal. 4. The contention of the appellant is that the goods were supplied to Indian Navy for the manufacture of warship. The requisite certificate was also produced. Therefore the eligibility for the benefit of Notification is not in question. Department's case is only re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t was held that benefit cannot be denied merely on the ground that certificates stipulated in Notification produced subsequently. 5. Learned Addl. Commr. (AR) reiterated the findings of the lower authorities. 6. Undisputedly the appellant has produced the requisite certificate. The veracity of the said certificate is also not in question. Perusal of the invoice number dated 24-12-2004 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X