1988 (8) TMI 248

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i K.R. Chopra, Consultant, for the Respondent. [Order per : K. Prakash Anand, Member (T)]. - The un-disputed facts of the case are that the respondents are manufacturers of bolts and nuts, who applied for Central Excise Licence around October/November, 1975 and this was granted to them on 17-1-1976. On 18-11 -1976, when a Central Excise Officer visited the manufacturing premises, he observed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....now before us. 2. We have heard Shri L.C. Chakraborthy, JDR on behalf of the department and Shri K.R. Chopra, consultant on behalf of the respondents. 3. Shri Chakraborthy submits that the order-in-appeal is not legal and proper as in accordance with 2nd proviso to Notification No. 14/76-C.E., dated 23-1 -1976, manufacturers of specified goods eligible for simplified procedure, but working u....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lly considered the facts of the case and the submissions made before us. The Second proviso to Notification 14/76 reads as follows :- "Provided that no exemption granted under any other notification issued under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the aid Rules, from the whole of the duty leviable on any of the excisable goods [specified under sub-rule (1) of the said Rule 173 RA and the duty on which is....