2001 (4) TMI 87

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....condoned. 2. The learned Solicitor General appearing for the Department fairly states that the Department does not question the correctness of the judgments in Moti Laminates Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1995 (76) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.) = 1995 (3) SCC 23, and Union of India & Anr. v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. & Anr., 1997 (91) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.) = 1997 (5) SCC 767, ins....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unal has failed to consider the facts of even a single of the appeals before it. It has proceeded simply upon the basis that structurals are not exigible to excise duty. It has failed to appreciate that there is a tariff entry which makes structurals exigible to excise duty and that they are so exigible, provided that they are new identifiable goods that are the result of manufacture or processes ....