TMI Blog1994 (6) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, for the Appellants. Shri K.K. Dutta, JDR, for the Respondents. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. The above captioned appeals involve common issues and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order. The brief facts are as follows : E/1778/85-B1 The appellants manufacture electric wires falling under TI 33B(ii) of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the financial year 1984-85; but upheld the order of the Assistant Collector relating to non-availability of exemption in terms of Notification 83/83. E/1779/85-B1 This appeal arises as a consequence to the earlier appeal - the appellants cleared electric wires on payment of duty at the effective rate from 1-4-1984 and preferred a refund claim for Rs. 1,23,687.50 under cover of letter dated 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i.e. 1984-85 had not exceeded Rs. 75 lakhs, has been denied on the ground that the value of clearances in the current financial year i.e. 1985-86 was over Rs. 75 lakhs, though admittedly the value of clearances during 1984-85 was below that limit. 2. We have heard Shri Gopal Prasad, learned Consultant and Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri K.K.Dutta, learned DR for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear. The proviso to the notification is also not attracted in the instant case as it would only restrict the aggregate value of clearances of specified goods from any factory by or on behalf of one or more manufacturers in any financial year to the extent mentioned therein. The proviso does not govern clause (ii) of the Notifications 83/83 and 85/85. As the value of clearances by the appellants is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
