1999 (4) TMI 167

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i D.H. Mehta, Advocate, for the Respondents. [Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. -  This appeal from revenue was argued by Shri G.B. Yadav, Shri D.H. Mehta, Advocate, appeared for the respondents. 2. The first issue for decision is whether a manufacturer operating under Notification 175/86 could avail of the facility of paying duty on certain products after utilising the Mo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essees have been distinguished in the five member bench judgment. In the said judgment the Tribunal had held that the two paths given in the said notification could not be availed of at the same time by the same manufacturer for goods falling under different classifications. Shri Mehta submits that it has come in the Noble (India) judgment that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Faridabad....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....emand could be issued only for six months and allowed the appeal on limitation also. In the appeal memorandum it is claimed that the show cause notice being dated 16-7-1987, the demand for the period from 11-9-1986 to 31-3-1987 was not barred by limitation. Prima facie this calculation is correct but we will deal with this when we take up the next issue for decision. 5. The third issue is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....case was discussing the coverage of Rules 9, 10 and 10A as they existed at the material time. In paragraph 14 of the judgment what the Court observed was that if the power existed to issue the notice under either of two rules, then the fact that the same was issued under one rule when the other was applicable could be condoned. The situation here is different. As we interpreted the show cause noti....