1999 (1) TMI 181

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppellant. Shri C.P. Rao, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of copper and copper articles including alloys. Appellant claimed, and was granted the benefit of Notification 118/88 in respect of copper and brass manufactured by it. Notice was subsequently issued proposing to deny the benefit of the notification on the g....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty. 3. The Tribunal's decision in Bama Metal Industries v. C.C.E. considered that where technology required the addition of small quantities of metals other those specified in Chapter 74, the notification would not be denied. It relied on the Board's circular. There is repeated reference - at least three times - in this circular to the use of small quantities of metals such as zinc and brass....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d articles thereof falling under Chapter 74. It cannot be said that it was the intention behind the notification to extent the benefit even in cases where metals not falling within Chapter 74 used were not as a technological necessity in the manufacture of copper, but with an intention to manufacture copper alloys. 5. However, the circular of the Board that has been referred takes a contrary stan....