9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (6) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. - Appellants were manufacturing goods falling under T.I. No. 68. They were availing of the benefit of Notification No. 46/81, dated 1-3-1981 which exempted goods falling under Tariff Item No. 68 which goods were not manufactured in a factory. This notification was rescinded on 1-8-1985. Vide another Notification No. 77/85-C.E., the first clearance of su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... randum is that in terms of Explanation II(a) of Notification No. 77/85, the value of clearances made under Notification No. 46/81 could not be taken into account. 3. We have heard Shri G.D. Sharma, JDR. It is his claim that Notification No. 46/81 exempted those goods which were not made in a factory. He further states that in the first paragraph of Notification No. 77/85, it is clearly broug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces made in a financial year) issued under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and for the time being in force, shall not be taken into account." 6. Notification No. 46/81 exempted goods from whole of duty of excise. That notification did not provide exemption on the criterion of value of clearances; that notification was issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... those factories which were not in terms of definition of the term `factory' under the Factories Act. Although this has not been made clear in the body of the notification, once it is accepted that definition of factory in Notification No. 77/85 should be in terms of Central Excises and Salt Act and not in terms of the Factories Act, the objection of Shri Sharma lacks merits. On these observations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
