TMI Blog1988 (4) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore are being taken up together for disposal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants manufactured goods falling under Tariff Item 17 and in respect of their clearances during 1981-82 and 1982-83 have claimed the benefit of Notification No. 89/80-C.E. Initially they claimed benefit under Notification No. 70/76-C.E. Later, however, they claimed that since they were eligible also for the benefit of Notification No. 89/80 which was more beneficial to them, they should be given the benefit of the said notification and they voluntarily remitted the amount of duty benefit which was claimed in terms of Notification No. 70/76-C.E. For proper appreciation of the fact, the relevant portions of the two notifications are reproduced be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yearly or on behalf of a manufacturer, from one or more factories, from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as excess of twenty per cent ad valorem: Provided that the total quantity of clearances of such paper and paper board from any factory, for home consumption by or on behalf of one or more manufacturers, at the reduced rate of duty as specified in this notification shall not exceed three hundred tonnes in any financial year. 2. The exemption contained in this notification shall not be applicable to a manufacturer - (i) if the total quantity of clearances of such paper and paperboard, if any, by him or on his behalf from one or more factories during the preceding financial year, had exceeded three hundred tonnes; or ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of the benefit of only of the two notifications. He cited the case of Chowgule Matrix Hobs Limited, Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, 1987 (31) E.L.T. 736 (Tribunal). This case law, we observe, is not relevant to the issue before us. 4. The learned JDR for the department reiterated the arguments set out in the adjudicating authority s order and stated that he has no further submission to make in this regard. 5. We observe it is not in dispute that the appellants could avail of the benefit of either of the two notifications and that they satisfied the criterion for eligibility set out in these two notifications so far as the nature of the goods manufactured and the quantum of goods cleared are concerned. The only point in dispute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, however, in this regard, were adduced by the revenue nor any relevance of the notification in this context for the purpose of eligibility of the benefit under Notification No. 89/80 has been shown. In view of this, we find that this ground of appeal has no relevance to the issue before us. 7. The question that arises for our consideration is that if the appellants initially claimed the benefit under Notification No. 70/76, can they be taken to have been debarred from claiming the benefit under 89/80 at a later date? The reading of the two Notifications 70/76 and 89/80 shows that a manufacturer can avail of concession under one of the two notifications. Choice of claiming the benefit under either of the two notifications is with the man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
