2005 (4) TMI 155

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Chattopadhyay, Consultant for Respondent. Mr. Sanyal submits that the ld. Commissioner (Appeal-I)'s reliance on the case of Faridabad Tools Pvt. Ltd., confirmed by the Apex Court - 1996 (82) E.L.T. A149 appears to be misconceived and erroneous. With this with the provisions of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 which provides item-wise exemption for the specified goods manufactured in a ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ai-II reported in 2000 (120) E.L.T. 792 (Tri. - LB) = 2000 (40) RLT 295 (CEGAT-LB). He submits that the case is squarely covered by the decision rendered in the case of Dum Dum Metalloy Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-III reported in 2001 (134) E.L.T. 171 ( Tri.-Kolkata). Therefore, he submits that the appeal filed by the Revenue may be dismissed. 2. The facts of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the product and not claiming exemption in respect of some other product. In the instant case, we find that appellants, were availing benefit of small scale exemption in respect of machinery parts throughout the year and they never opted for payment of duty in respect of the said product and as such it cannot be said that by paying duty on waste and scrap they have made themselves disentitled to th....