2013 (11) TMI 692

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 The reference order dated 24-9-2007 [2008 (222) E.L.T. 384 (Tri.-Del.), having noticed a normative ambiguity resulting from the decisions in Mahindra & Mahindra Limited v. CCE, Aurangabad - 1999 (31) RLT 257 (CEGAT); Union Metals v. CCE, Kanpur - 2004 (172) E.L.T. 329 (Tri.-Del.), Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Pune - 2004 (171) E.L.T. 296 (S.C.), Indian Oil .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ment at the consumers end; that the assessee sought to avail the benefits of Notification Nos. 16/97, 8/98 or 8/99, towards exemption available for branded goods; without however the procedure under Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, having been followed while claiming the exemption. The fact that the assessee was a small scale unit is also on record. The issue whether a manufacturer of a spec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . 3 (S.C.) has laid to rest the dilemma if any, with regard to strict and not mere substantial compliance with the procedure under Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Supreme Court declared that the procedure laid down in Chapter X is meant to establish receipt of goods by the recipient unit and their utilisation; that the object and purpose of the procedure laid down in Chapter X is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X