TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld be eligible to claim exemption either under N/N. 8/97-CE dated 1.3.1997 or N/N. 55/1991-CE - when there are two Notifications available, it is the option of the assessee to follow any one of them which is more beneficial to him - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/1135/2003-DB - 21063/2017 - Dated:- 3-5-2017 - Shri SS Garg, Judicial Member And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member Mr. Mohammed Rahim, Advocate, For the Appellant Mr. N. Jagadish, AR, For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 29.8.2003 passed by the Commissioner (A) wherein the Commissioner (A) has confirmed the Order-in-Original but set aside the penalty imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law as the same is passed without considering the relevant Notification and also by ignoring the binding judicial precedents. He further submitted that the appellant had the option of choosing one Notification when there were two Notifications available to them at the relevant point of time. He further submitted that the proceedings initiated, confirmed and upheld against them have the effect of denying them the benefit which was thrust upon them and which was not claimed by them. It is his submission that it is not in dispute that the appellants were entitled to benefit under two Notifications and they have opted for one Notification, which was more beneficial to them. He further submitted that the law on the issue of entitlement of benefi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion) Suwavanshi Spinning Mills Ltd Vs. CCE: 2006 (201) ELT 149 (T) Parasrampuria International Vs. CCE: 2005 (188) ELT A227 (SC) Pasupati Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE: 2004 (178) ELT 644 (T) 5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties, I find that the Circular dated 19.10.2000 clarifying that AED would be on yarn manufactured by a 100% EOU from indigenous raw materials and cleared into DTA, has been quashed by the Tribunal in CCE Vs. Indocount Choongnam Textiles Ltd.: 2006 (193) ELT 105 (T) by relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Nahar Industrial Enterprises (supra) . Further, I also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
