2016 (12) TMI 29

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Member (Technical) Shri R.K. Manjhi, DR for the appellant. None for the respondent Per B. Ravichandran: These appeals are by the Revenue against order dated 26.04.2013 of Commissioner (Appeals), Delhi-II. The issue involved is the eligibility of the respondent for exemption under Notification no.4/2006- dated 1.3.2006 (Sl.No.74). The respondent are manufacturing Ready Mix Concrete fa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... we have examined the appeal papers with the help of ld. AR. We note that the impugned order recorded the following factual findings:- "Therefore, merely using a different name for the same product cannot result in a different product thereby leading to denial of exemption to which the appellant are lawfully entitled and Notification No.4/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 having referred to the concrete m....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....settled position of law that when two notifications are in force, it is purely the option of the assessee to choose the one beneficial to him." 3. Further, the Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the Board's Circular dated 18.5.1999 to hold that the expression "Site" may not be given restrictive meaning and shall include in premises made available to the manufacturer of goods falling under Heading....