ORDER
C. Satapathy, Member (T)
1. Heard both sides. The appellants have been denied a exemption under Notification No. 58/97.C.E., dated 30.8.97 by the lower appellate authority on the ground that the demand for the inputs have not been paid by bank draft from the appellant’s own account. Shri N.K. Chowdhury, Id. Advocate appearing for the appellants states that initially exemption was allowed by the original authority and the department had filed appeal before the lower appellate authority on the ground that the payment for the inputs were not made through cheque from the appellant’s own account. As such, according to him the order of the lower appellate authority was beyond the grounds of appeal put up by the department before him. Consequently, he argues that explanation to the said Notification No. 58/97.C.E. allows for three alternate modes of payment as follows:
(1) Cheque drawn on assessees own bank account, or
(2) By bank draft, or
(3) By bankers cheque
It is the Ld. Advocate’s contention that the payments in respect of consignments involved in these four appeals were made against L/C through bank demand draft as certified by the bank and as filed at page 12 and 13 of the appeal paper book.
2. Considering the submissions made from both sides and perusal of the case records, we find that the notification No. 58/97.C.E. clearly allows three modes of payment and there is no requirement that the bank drafts should be drawn using money from the assessees own account. In our view the certificate obtained from the bank shows that the conditions under the notification has been satisfied and hence the appellants are entitled to the exemption under the said Notification No. 58/97.C.E. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals with consequential benefit to the appellants. Stay applications also stand disposed off.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)