ORDER
C. Satapathy, Member (T)
1. Heard both sides. The issue relates to grant of exemption under Notification No. 142/94-Cus., dated 6-7-1994. The notification especially covers Di Lauroyl Peroxide. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has come to the finding that the impugned goods declared as Laurox-W-40 is Di Lauroyl Peroxide 40% suspension in water. He has denied the exemption on the ground that the impugned goods being in the nature of solution of Di Lauroyl Peroxide cannot be granted exemption. We find no merit in the conclusion arrived by the lower appellate authority. The exemption under the Notification is unconditional and, therefore, Di Lauroyl Peroxide in solution form is also eligible for the exemption.
2. Accordingly, we allow the appeal with consequential benefit to the appellants.
(Pronounced in Court on 13-7-2005.)