2018 (1) TMI 615

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Joint Commissioner, (AR) & Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, Superintendent (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary Heard on Miscellaneous Application for Restoration of Appeal. It is explained by the ld. Counsel that although he, for some personal reasons, could not come to Allahabad to attend the hearing and accordingly, he requested his colleague for making request in the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....als), Meerut-II, Noida. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of machined forging of non-alloy steel and stainless steel, liable to Central Excise duty. They have cleared flanges to Northern Area Development Project, on shore, undertaken by Claim Energy India Pvt. Ltd. under International competitive bidding. They claimed exemption under Notification No....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....us. 4. The learned Counsel for appellant submitted that they are rightly eligible for the exemption claimed as per above Notifications. In their own case the Commissioner (Appeals) in his earlier order dated 16/09/2013 allowed the said exemption to them. The impugned order otherwise is contrary to the earlier order without any valid reasons. He further submitted that they have supplied the said f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....goods. He, further, pleaded that the reason on the basis of which learned Appellate Authority rejected the appeal was not therein the Show Cause Notice. Also relied on the case of Kent Introl Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE, Nashik reported in 2014 (301) E.L.T. 84 (Tri. - Mumbai). 5. Learned A. R. reiterated the findings of the impugned order and submitted that the flanges are not covered by the list of ite....