Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Welcome to TaxTMI

We're migrating from taxmanagementindia.com to taxtmi.com and wish to make this transition convenient for you. We welcome your feedback and suggestions. Please report any errors you encounter so we can address them promptly.

Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Feedback/Report an Error
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home /

1999 (6) TMI 114

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dent. [Order per : G.R. Sharma, Member (T)]. -  The short point for determination in this appeal is whether the goods manufactured by the respondent and marketed as Vitreous Enamelled Reflectors are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 76/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 as amended. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that during the course of Preventive Checks, Central Excise Office....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cises & Salt Act, 1944, why the goods should not be confiscated and why a personal penalty should not be imposed. In reply to the show cause notice, the respondent herein submitted that their product was enamelware and therefore, exempted under Notification No. 76/86. They also contended that this notification grants exemption to enamelware irrespective of the chapter heading as it is not mentione....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation, there is no scope for intendment and a literal construction will have to be adopted. After considering the various submissions, ld. Collector dropped the proceedings as indicated above. 3. At the outset Dr. P.V. Jois, ld. Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that the appeal was not maintainable inasmuch as for subsequent period the respondents have been allowed the benefit ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nsideration of the submissions, we find that there is force in the argument of the ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent that the Department had permitted them to avail the benefit of Notification No. 76/86 for subsequent period and that if they were entitled to this benefit for subsequent period, there is no reason why they should be deprived of the benefit for the earlier period. We have peru....