TMI Blog1988 (8) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r : K. Prakash Anand, Member (T)]. - The un-disputed facts of the case are that the respondents are manufacturers of bolts and nuts, who applied for Central Excise Licence around October/November, 1975 and this was granted to them on 17-1-1976. On 18-11 -1976, when a Central Excise Officer visited the manufacturing premises, he observed that the respondents had cleared bolts and nuts valued at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JDR on behalf of the department and Shri K.R. Chopra, consultant on behalf of the respondents. 3. Shri Chakraborthy submits that the order-in-appeal is not legal and proper as in accordance with 2nd proviso to Notification No. 14/76-C.E., dated 23-1 -1976, manufacturers of specified goods eligible for simplified procedure, but working under Chapter V of Central Excise Rules, 1944 would not be en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before us. The Second proviso to Notification 14/76 reads as follows :- Provided that no exemption granted under any other notification issued under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the aid Rules, from the whole of the duty leviable on any of the excisable goods [specified under sub-rule (1) of the said Rule 173 RA and the duty on which is payable by the manufacturer thereof in the manner provided for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion itself has not been extended to, or availed of by the assessee. 7. The Collector (Appeals) has held that it is on record that the respondent has not exceeded clearances to bolts and nuts beyond value of Rs. 5 lakhs in a financial year. This is not denied before us by the department. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 158/71, dated 26-7-1971. Accordingly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
