TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (7) TMI 343
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the Appellant. Shri Satnam Singh, SDR, for the Respondents. [Order per : P.C. Jain, Member (T)]. - Briefly stated. Facts of the case are as follows :- Respondents herein, manufacturers of Platinum/rhodium stainless gauzes, were paying duty in terms of Notification No. 131/81-C.E., which gives exemption to the extent of value of old and used platinum/ rhodium used in the manufactur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atinum/ rhodium. 2. On appeal before the lower appellate authority the respondents herein succeeded. The said authority has held follows :- "I have carefully gone through the order appealed against and have considered the various arguments made in the appeal petitions as well as those argued during the course of personal hearing. The Asstt. Collector has erred in distinguishing the word....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this appeal by revenue. 4. We have heard both sides. Crux of the issue before us is whether the appellants have utilised old and used metal or the article in question. It is no doubt true that the respondents are required to prove this because it is they who have made this claim. In support of their claim, the respondents have stated in their cross-objections that they have placed all the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....virgin metal" it is clear from the contract (extract given above) that gauzes had to be made from pure or virgin metal or both. The contract does not say that the gauzes are necessarily to be made only from pure virgin metal as read by the Asstt. Collector. Similarly the lower appellate authority has based his findings on the fact that the appellant had not purchased any metal from the MMTC which ....