1997 (3) TMI 97

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Madras, is directed against the judgment and order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (`the Tribunal' for short) dated July 8, 1986, whereby it affirmed the order dated August 1, 1981 of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras, granting refund of excise duty to the respondent-assessee in reversal of the order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r, had exceeded rupees fifteen lakhs. (ii) who manufactures excisable goods falling under more than one Item number of the said first schedule and the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods by him or on his behalf for home consumption, from one or more factories, during the preceding financial year, had exceeded rupees twenty lakhs." The respondent claimed refund of duty paid d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... value did not exceed Rs. 20 lakhs, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of exemption under the afore-mentioned Notification and ordered refund. The Tribunal affirmed this view in the Revenue's appeal to that body. Hence this appeal. 3. Paragraph 1 of the Notification refers to specified goods i.e., goods specified in column 3 of the table annexed to the Notification. Paragraph 2 ex- tracte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed goods while sub-paragraph (ii) fixes the limit of Rs. 20 lakhs where the clearance is for both specified and unspecified goods. This is the controversy. 4. Paragraph 2(i) speaks of aggregate value of clearances of `each serial number of the specified goods' whereas Paragraph 2(ii) speaks of `excisable goods' falling under more than one item. It is thus clear that clause (i) is confined to `s....