2000 (11) TMI 145

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....75/86, dated 1-3-1986 issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner - Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board who have a workshop at Tirunelveli; that the petitioners are engaged in the manufacture of wooden and steel furniture, as well as other articles of iron and steel; that prior to 1-3-1986, the goods of the petitioners were classifiable under T.I. 68 CET and T.I. 40 (Articles of steel furniture); that the petitioners were not paying any duty since they were entitled to exemption under Notification 85/85, dated 17-3-1985 read with Notification 212/86, dated 25-3-1986; that on 19-8-1989, a show cause notice was issued by the Collector of Central Excise, Madurai - the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... been rejected which is not sustainable in law. 6.Further the learned Counsel Mr. T. Ramesh relied on a decision in Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. reported in Volume 66 ITR 710 on the ground that the Appellate Authority when the materials are available on record even without pleading can go into the issue whether the benefit of the Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-8-1986 is available or not and for the very same purpose, he also relied on a decision in Madura Mills Company Limited v. Government of Madras and Another reported in Vol. XXV, S.T.C. 407. 7.On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Department has contended that the petitioner is not vigilent and they have requested for filing an affida....