9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent. [Order per : Mathew John, Member (T)]. - The Appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Cotton and Synthetic yarn. During Feb 2000 to May 2000 they dispatched such yarn to National Handloom Development Corporation Lucknow claiming exemption under Notification No. 5/99-C.E., dated 28-2-1999 (S. No. 94 or S. No. 129) for Feb 2000 and under Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e used only on handlooms." 2. In this case there is no dispute that the substantial conditions have been satisfied. The only objection is that the appellants did not produce the certificate as prescribed in the above notification at the time of clearance of the goods as prescribed in the notification. But the certificate was produced after clearance. 3. The Revenue was of the view that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i.e. the late production of the certificate from the NHDC i.e. after the clearances, whereas it was required to be produced at the time or before the clearance, in terms of abovesaid notifications, the same, in our view, is not tangible, in view of the ratio of the law laid down in the case of Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Spg & Wvg Mills Federation v CCE Jaipur reported in 2002 (14) E.L.T. 235 and Baj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e find that the issue under dispute is decided by the Tribunal in appellants' own case for a previous period. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Cadilla Laboratories was in the matter of a procedure laid down for ensuring the raw materials used in the manufacture of exempted products were duty paid goods. Compliance with this procedure after manufacture and clearance was not possible. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
