1981 (1) TMI 262

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nts urged by the petitioners Advocate Shri R.L. Maniar at the time of personal hearing. 2. The short facts of the case are that the petitioners manufacture iron and steel products from steel ingots which were manufactured from scrap with the aid of electric furnace. The petitioners claim benefit of Exemption Notification No. 206/63 as amended by Notification No. 123/63 for the goods manufact .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ailable. He relied on the Madhya Pradesh High Court Judgment in the case of Kirloskar Bros. and Ltd. v. Union of India and others [1978 E.L.T. (J 33)]. He also drew attention to the fact that S.L.P. against the particular judgment filed by the Govt. of India was not even admitted by the Court. Shri Maniar also explained that the petitioners had claimed benefit of Notification No. 206/63 (as amende .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Asstt. Collector insisted upon their filing a fresh classification list, as pointed out above. Shri Maniar stressed that the petitioners were not only entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid Exemption notification with reference to the date of manufacture but also because they were unduly prevented from getting the benefit of aforesaid Exemption Notification when they wanted to clear the goods .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X