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

....espondent. [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 that the respondents had cleared bolts....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....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 under Chapter V of Central Excise Rules, 194....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bmissions 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 payable by the manufacturer thereof in the manne....