2015 (5) TMI 559

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Commissioner (AR) ORDER Per: P K Jain: Brief facts of the case are that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter Heading 4822.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It was also found that in addition to manufacturing on their own, they were also doing job work on behalf of one M/s. D.S. Enterprises. The appellants were converting the pape....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of Notification 214/86 but they were entitled to the benefit of Notifications 83/94-CE and 84/94-CE both dated 11.4.1994 and if they had claimed the benefit of the said Notifications, there would be no duty liability. It was also contended that this is a point of law and can be raised at any point. 3.1 Another contention of the learned counsel wa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../s. D.S. Enterprises, is a trading unit and not a manufacturing unit and the conditions stipulated under Notifications 83/94 and 84/94 are of a nature which can be satisfied by a manufacturer. Since the plea for the benefit of the two notifications has been raised for the first time, it would be proper to remand the matter to the original authority to examine whether the appellants would be really....