2019 (3) TMI 2034

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... i Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Shri Joseph Prabhakar, Advocate. For the Respondent : Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR). ORDER PER BENCH After hearing both sides, we find that the issue stands covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Areva T&D India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, LTU, Chennai as reported in 2017-VIL-983-CESTAT-CHE-CE. 2. Bri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or the benefit of Notification 67/95 as they have not complied with the conditions stipulated therein. The issue stands covered by the decision cited above. The relevant portion is extracted as under:- "5.1 The facts of the case are not in dispute. The appellant-assessee cleared the control panels availing exemption to Mega Power Projects. For such exemption, the appellant-assessees have complie .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... riginal authority is self-contradictory. 5.2 On careful consideration of the facts of the case and submissions of the appellants, we note that the eligibility of the appellant-assessee for exemption under Notification No. 67/1995 cannot be disputed. They have followed the provisions and complied with the provisions of Rule 6 and all the connected requirements of the Notification No. 67/1995. We .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X