2002 (10) TMI 476

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants, being registered with the DGTD, were not availing the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-CE, dated 28-2-93; that after the amendment of the said Notification by Notification No. 125/94-CE, dated 31-8-94 they became eligible to claim the benefit of Notification No. 1/93; that as the amendment was not noticed by them, they did not avail the benefit of Notification No. 1/93; that they filed a claim for the refund of excise duty on 9-8-85 for the period from 7-2-95 to 31-3-95; that the Assistant Commissioner, under Order No. 77/95, dated 1-12-95 rejected their refund claim on the ground that Notification exempted goods up to the aggregate value of first clearance of Rs. 75 lakhs and they had already e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d in the Show-cause Notice, they could not make detailed submission. He, therefore, requested that the matter may be remanded to the jurisdictional Central Excise Officer so that the said aspect could be examined by him. 3. Countering the arguments, Ms. Neeta Lal Butalia, learned SDR, submitted that the decision in the case of Watts Electronics has been distinguished by the Tribunal in the case of Uttam Industries v. C.C.E, New Delhi, 2001 (130) E.L.T. 948 (T) wherein it has been held that once a manufacturer exercises the option for not availing of the benefit of the exemption contained in the Notification, he has to pay duty at the rate applicable on all subsequent clearances; that as the Appellant continued to pay duty at full ra....