1977 (8) TMI 159

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... erve that the second proviso to Notification No. 14/76 dated 23-1-1976 would not be attracted in the appellants case because the above notification is applicable only to those manufacturers, who hold a licence for less than 12 months immediately preceding the month in which they make the application for simplified procedure and to a licence who applies for licence for the first time on or after 1- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Since the appellants did pot fall in any of the category referred to in the said proviso, therefore, the second proviso of Notification No. 14/76, dated 23-1-1976 would not be attracted. Therefore the Assistant Collector s order depriving the appellants of the benefit of exemption from duty under Notification No. 38/75, dated 1-3-1975 as amended is not proper. Under .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . The duty liability of the appellants will, therefore, be determined by the Assistant Collector under Chapter V procedure and the appellants will continue to avail of the exemption, if eligible for the same. In view of the above discussions, the order of the Assistant Collector is set aside. Assessments for the relevant period will be revised in accordance with the decision in pare of the orde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X