TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst the impugned order-in-original vide which the adjudicating authority, Commissioner, has denied the benefit of exemption Notifications No. 5/98-C.E., dated 2-6-1998 and 5/99-C.E., dated 28-2-1999. 2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn. They supplied the said yarn during the period in dispute i.e. 2-6-1998 to 31-1-2000 to M/s. Nat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erned i.e. the late production of the certificates from the NHDC i.e. after the clearances, whereas it was required to be produced at the time or before the clearance, in terms of above said notifications, the same, in our view is, not tangible, in view of the ratio of the law laid down in the cases of Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Spg. Wvg. Mills Federation v. CCE, Jaipur, 2002 (140) E.L.T. 235 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... looms, in our view, has never been properly examined, keeping in view the wordings of the above said notifications. We do not find if any of the these notifications in question, cast duty on the appellants to see that the goods supplied to a particular society were utilised on handlooms. However, the adjudicating authority has not examined this question. Besides this, the appellants have also prod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
