9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (9) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ger, for the Respondents. [Order per : Lajja Ram, Member (T)]. - In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the interpretation of exemption Notification No. 118/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1987. Under this Notification No. 118/75-C.E. goods classifiable under Item No. 68 when used for captive consumption enjoyed the full exemption from Central Excise duty. This exemption was, however, n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication No. 118/75-C.E. was not applicable to them. 2. The matter was posted for hearing on 9-9-1996, when Shri P.K. Jain, SDR, explained the case of the Revenue. On behalf of the respondents, a request for adjournment was made by Shri S.K. Malik, Liaison Manager. As Shri P.K. Jain, SDR, explained the facts of the case, we consider that this matter could be settled without any arguments on b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ete machinery, but were only machinery parts. They were not covered by the exclusion clause. There is no dispute that these machinery parts were used in the factory in the manufacture of complete machinery. The arguments that the complete machinery was not cleared from the factory had no relevance, as it is nowhere provided in the Notification No. 118/75-C.E., that the goods in which the raw mater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
