2001 (3) TMI 842

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. - These two appeals from the Revenue involve the same state of facts and are therefore taken up together for disposal in this single order. 2. Both the respondents had taken benefit of Notification 23/89-C.E., dated 1-3-1989. The notification required certification of certain parameters by the Director of Industries in the State Government or by the Develo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to be derived. It was claimed that if there was no designated authority in the State, it was appropriate for the assessee to have gone to Centre for due certification. On this ground the reversal of the orders was sought. 4. We have considered the submissions. We find that the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Lyphin Chemicals - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 147 had dealt with an identical situation. In No .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. As a result, the appeal is rejected." 5. We find that the judgment would apply to the facts of the present case. We do not find that in producing the certificate from the Joint Director the assessees had lost the benefit of the notification. The impugned orders of the Collector (Appeals) are upheld. The Revenue appeals are dismissed.
Case laws, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X