9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , three appeals are against Order-in-Appeal Nos. 223 224/97, dated 17-11-97. 3. Assessee-respondent are manufacturers of lubricating preparations used in leather tanning industries by concessional rate of duty at 10%; claiming concessional rate of duty as per the Notification No. 13/92 as amended by 12/93 and 12/94. The department felt that goods manufactured by assessee should be treated as Preparations of a kind used for oil treatment of leather classifiable under Heading 34.03 and consequently the concession given under the said Notification 12/94 as amended by 14/95 should be denied and hence the differential duty for the period 16-3-95 to 31-12-95 and 1-1-96 to 21-7-96 were demanded by the original authority which was set aside by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inction between lubricating preparation and the one used in for machine purpose of a preparation of a kind used in industry. We are not in these appeals concerned with the question of classification of the item falling under Chapter 34 or its exclusion. For the purpose of grant of exemption of a notification, the plea with regard to applicability of HSN explanatory note cannot be considered. The reason being that the terms of a notification is comprehensive and there is no scope for any intentment or drawing a different inference than the words used in the notification. The notification has to be strictly construed. The words therein are that it exempts lubricating preparations, not containing petroleum, oils or of oils obtained from bitumi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent view. We find no merit in the Revenue appeal and the appeals are dismissed." 4. Heard ld. DR Shri A. Jayachandran who reiterates the grounds taken up in the Revenue appeals. 5. Shri S. Ranganathan, ld. Advocate submits that Commissioner has given due consideration to all the factors and evidence on record and after expressing his opinion followed the earlier Order-in-Appeal No. 40/95, dated 30-11-95 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the case of CCE, Chennai v. Balmer Lawrie Co. Ltd., a PSU. He submits that amended Notification No. 14/95 has also been taken into consideration and the benefit has been extended in view of the fact that the item is satisfying the terms of the notification. He submits that there is no ground to d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
