1995 (1) TMI 151

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llant was not represented the hearing. Shri V.C. Bhartia, JDR supports the order of the Collector (Appeals). 3. The appellant had filed a classification list from 9-9-1986 and had already approved by the Department on 1-10-1986. The appellant claimed that it did not avail exemption under the notification and paid duty at the effective rate on the goods cleared from 15-9-1986. Therefore, it was entitled to Modvat credit on the inputs in the manufacture of such goods. 4. It is to be noted that the order of the Collector (Appeals) was dealing with an appeal from the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Sangli. The Assistant Collector, in his order, was dealing with the situation caused by the appellant filing a classificat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at a notice of hearing was duly sent to the appellant. However, it has been returned undelivered with remarks `Firm Closed'. The appellants have not communicated any other address. 7. In the circumstances, we decided to consider the matter on the basis of the material available on record including the Appeal Memo as well as the copy of the letter dtd. 25th Oct., 1988 addressed to the Collector (Appeals) and hear the Ld. D.R. 8. Ld. D.R. stated that appellant had claimed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 175/86 in the Classification List No. 66/86-87 effective from 6-2-1987 but the Assistant Collector had not allowed the same as the appellant had earlier opted for Modvat Scheme and in the A.C.'s view the appellants could not ha....