TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (8) TMI 246
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5/2000, dated 30-8-2000 by which the ld. Commissioner did not grant benefit of Notification No. 59/90 and the judgment of M/s. Delhi Tourism & Transportation Development Corpn. v. CCE reported in [1999 (114) E.L.T. 421 (T)] in terms of the remand order passed by the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 93/2000, dated 17-1-2000 [2002 (148) E.L.T. 518 (Tribunal)]. The Commissioner has attempted to disting....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the notification and the earlier judgments rendered by the Tribunal in DT & TDC case would apply to the facts of the case. The judgment of K.S. & Company was against a similar order by the CCE, Madurai, therefore it accepted the plea to take up the appeal out of turn and to decide the same today and called upon the Revenue to file the report. 3. Ld. DR points out to the report on record which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ected to re-examine the issue in the light of the judgment rendered in Delhi Tourism & Transportation Development Corporation v. CCE. However, he has distinguished the same and to this effect, the Dy. Commissioner had also filed a report. However, the Tribunal while considering their stay application by Stay Order No. 214/2001, dated 24-5-2001, took into consideration the subsequent Final Order No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aside, in view of the fact that the demand is not sustainable in law. 8. We further note that the appellants were manufacturing cement articles for supply to railways at site, allotted by railways. In the instant case, we find that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 59/90, inasmuch as the site for manufacture of cement articles was allotted to the appellants by the rai....