9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (2) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application. No personal hearing has been asked for. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioners claimed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 71/78, dated 1-3-78 in respect of the excisable goods cleared by them. During the financial year 1978-79, they cleared the excisable goods for the first time after 1st August, 1978. While considering their eligibility for the concession unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of the petitioners that they had cleared the goods in the preceding financial year only after 1-8-78 and that during the financial year 1979-80 the total value of clearances of the specified goods exceeded ₹ 15 lakhs and hence they were not eligible for the concession under the notification in view of the clause (aa). 3. The petitioners contend that their case is covered by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... satisfied, the petitioners would not be eligible for the notification. Thus, even if the petitioners satisfy the condition in clause (a)(ii), they would not be eligible for the benefit of notification if they do not satisfy the conditions in clause (aa). In the present case the petitioners admittedly do not satisfy the condition in clause (aa). This fact has not been disputed in their submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
