1996 (5) TMI 252

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y, JDR, for the Respondents. [Order per : T. P. Nambiar, Member (J)]. -  The present appeal is directed against the Central Excise duty demand of Rs. 6,44,893.48 on 8956.854 MTs of Cement Clinker manufactured and removed by the appellants from 1986-87 to 1987-88. The main ground on which the appellant was not allowed the benefit of Notification No. 119/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 was that t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Saundanahalli Village, C.N. Halli Taluk, Tumkur Dist. on 14-4-1987 found that the said factory is engaged in the manufacture and clearance of clinkers falling [in] Chapter sub-heading No. 2502.10 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were receiving raw materials like lime stone, coke breeze and clay from M/s. Nandi Cements holders of licence L-4 No. 1/Cement/86 situated in the same survey No. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the knowledge of the department and in such circumstances the claim for the benefit of Notification No. 119/86 should have been given to the appellants. 4.  We have heard the learned JDR for the department Shri Arulswamy who stated that the appellants have not complied with the Chapter X procedure and they are not entitled for the same. 5. The learned advocate Shri G. Sampath reli....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 119/86. A mere procedural lapse in not following the Chapter X procedure is not sufficient to deny the benefit to the appellants as has been held in the abovesaid decisions which are relied by learned advocate. 7. In the present case from the allegations in the Show Cause Notice itself it is very clear the goods were received by the appellant and after the Job work is done they were sent ....