9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 885X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Advocate For the Respondent : Ms Shweta Bector, AR JUDGEMENT Per Archana Wadhwa (for the Bench): After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri Kamal Jeet Singh, learned advocate appearing for the appellant and Ms. Shweta Bector, learned DR appearing for the Revenue, we note that the appellant, who is engaged in the manufacture of ordinary Portland cement classified under Chapter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24/91. Accordingly by relying upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Panchkula vs. Shaktiman Cement (P) Ltd. [2004 (178) ELT 1013 (Tri-Del)], which laid down that simultaneous availment of two notifications for same consignment is not appropriate, he rejected the appeal. Hence the present appeal. 3. We have appreciated the submissions made by both sides and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion in the case of Mamta Cement Co. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi [2000 (117) ELT 157 (Tri) ]. It stand held that when there are more than one notifications on the same issue, the assessee is entitled to avail the benefit of either one and the option lies with him. The Tribunal held that after exhausting the limit of clearance provided in terms of notification No. 1/93 CE, he was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
