9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 622X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise Act, 1944 (Act, for short) has impugned the order, dated 4th March, 2011 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal). In the operative portion, the Tribunal has held as under :- 10. In the cases in hand, it is the contention on behalf of the department that the product in question which are similar in character and nature are not only manufactured by only one assessee but are manufactured by a number of assessees and consumed in the work of the project by the DMRC in various segments of such project, and this aspect is established from very fact that a number of such assessees are before this Tribunal challenging the orders passed by the lower authorities in relation to such products. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1986) except sub-headings 6804, 6805, 6811, 6812 and 6813. 1st March, 2006 to 6th July, 2009 (Both inclusive) 2. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 11C of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the whole of duty of excise leviable under the said Act on such goods falling under such tariff sub-headings as specified in the said Table but for the said practice, shall not be required to be paid for the period specified in column (3) of the said Table, subject to fulfilment of condition that the benefit under this notification shall not be admissible unless the unit claiming benefit in terms of this notification reverse the input credit, if any, taken in respect of inp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g. He submits that launching trusses are covered by Chapter 84. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-assessee submits that launching trusses are covered by entry No. 7308.50. He has drawn our attention to a subsequent order passed by the Tribunal dated 5th August, 2011. This order was passed on an application filed by the respondent-assessee seeking rectification of the mistake apparent from the record and for modification of the order dated 4th March, 2011. 5. The order dated 5th August, 2011 passed by the Tribunal reads as under :- Heard the Advocate for the appellants and the DR for the respondent. By the present application, the appellants are seeking to rectify the mistake apparent from the record and modify the impugned fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other articles and the fact that the same were benefited by the Notification being not disputed, the appeals were disposed of. In case the said finding is in consonance with the Notification or not cannot be a ground for review though perhaps may be a ground for appeal. 7. In our considered opinion, therefore, there is no error apparent on the face of the record so as to justify review of the order. 8. The application is therefore, dismissed. 6. In view of the aforesaid factual position, we are inclined to frame following substantial question of law. (i) Whether the Tribunal had decided the question that the trusses are covered under exemption notification, dated 17th February, 2011, in their order dated 4th March, 2011? ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
