2000 (12) TMI 186

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed. 2.The appellants are engaged in the process of multiplying (folding) or cabling of yarn falling under specified sub-heading. Prior to 11-4-1997, they were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 4/97-C.E. (NT) dated 1-3-1997, inasmuch as the same allowed the full exemption to the process of folding or cabling of yarn carried out in a factory not having the facility of producing single yarn. Vide Notification No. 19/93-C.E. (NT), the condition of Notification No. 4/93-C.E. (NT) was amended. The condition no. 15A(iii) specified that the exemption would be available if no process of dyeing, bleaching or, as the case may be, mercerising is carried out on the said multiple (folded) or cabled yarn in the said factory. As the appellants....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d to another assessee similarly situate. 4.Countering the arguments, Shri A.K. Chattopadhyay, ld. JDR for Revenue submitted that admittedly, during the relevant period, the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of the notification in question. He also submitted that the condition No. 15A(ii) does not help the appellants' case. As regards the modvat, he submitted that the Commissioner has already observed that for taking the benefit of modvat credit, the appellants can approach the Asstt. Commissioner independently. 5.We have heard both the sides and have gone through the impugned order. The condition no. 15A(ii) of amending Notification is - "If manufactured out of yarn falling under chapter 51, 52, 54 or 55 of the said schedule....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....T. 381 (Tribunal)] has set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) by observing as under :- As"10. is evident from the above paragraph, the fact that during the interveing period, the benefit was not available to the respondents, has not been disputed. The Commissioner (Appeals) has gone by the factor that the Notification has been mis-worded which can he put to human error in drafting. However, we do not find any justifiable reason to support the above finding of the Commissioner (Appeals). It is well-settled principle of law that in case the wordings of notification are not ambiguous, the same have to be interpreted strictly and there is no room for intentment. The conditions attached to a notification are a part and parcel of th....