TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 distinguish the judgments of the Tribunal and has given a find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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 was already considered at the time of stay applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udgment 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. 1811/2000, dated 14-12-2000 in the case of K.S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 railway authorities, as the railways were converting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
