TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ors Limited, the issue involved is whether the abatement of duty is available to them under Rule 96ZQ(7)(g) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate submitted that the Appellants are independent processors processing man made fabrics; that they were assessed to Central Excise duty under Hot Air Stenter Independent Processors and Annual Capacity Rules, 2000; that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the period 24-10-2000 to 31-10-2000 on the ground that the factory was not closed during the entire month of October, 2000. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mahalakshmi Enterprises v. CCE, New Delhi - 2002 (140) E.L.T. 143. Shri R.C. Sankhla, learned SDR reiterated the findings as contained, in the order impugned. 3. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
