TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (1) TMI 657
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p;This is an appeal filed by M/s. Seth Sham Narain Gupta & Sons, 25/138, Shakti Nagar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) against the Order-in-Original No. 61/99, dated 1-4-99 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise MOD-I, New Delhi. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Generating set falling under sub-h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. Being aggrieved the appellants have filed the appeals on the following grounds : (i) That the provisional registration certificate dated 25-1-93 was valid for one year and there is no evidence on record with the Department that its condition has been changed so as to make it invalid by the time the two generating s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is speaks volumes against the ld. Assistant Commissioner himself. (iii) That the burden to prove ineligibility of the appellants to the benefits of the notification rests with the Department which still lay undischarged. (iv) That it is wrong to state that the appellants did not cooperate and were not traceable, as their address has not changed at all. 4.&ems....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I Registration Certificate (Provisional) issued to the appellants. I further observe that this issue has unambiguously been settled in favour of the appellants as clarified vide CBEC Circular No. 18/93-CX. 6, dated 24-12-93 and so held in the Hon'ble CEGAT judgments viz. 1993 (113) E.L.T. 438 (T) and 1994 (73) E.L.T. 375 (T). I find that the Assistant Commissioner has also accepted this contention....