https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120276 Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. was construed as denying exemption only where the manufacturer had factory facilities for manufacture of yarns or textured yarn. On the recorded facts, the texturising machines were unused and disconnected from power, and the appellant was not shown to possess the relevant manufacturing facility. Mere physical presence of machinery was therefore insufficient to deny the benefit, and the departmental reading of the notification was held to be misplaced. The appellant was consequently found entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery pending disposal of the appeal. en-us Thu, 14 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:10:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120276 Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. was construed as denying exemption only where the manufacturer had factory facilities for manufacture of yarns or textured yarn. On the recorded facts, the texturising machines were unused and disconnected from power, and the appellant was not shown to possess the relevant manufacturing facility. Mere physical presence of machinery was therefore insufficient to deny the benefit, and the departmental reading of the notification was held to be misplaced. The appellant was consequently found entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery pending disposal of the appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 14 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120276