ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. This is an appeal arising from OIA No. C.Cus. 1150/97, dated 15-10-97 by which the appellants were denied benefit of exemption under Notification No. 8/96-C.E. which granted exemption to imported ‘Rosin’ provided it is manufactured without aid of power. The importers produced supplier’s certificate which certified that the rosin is manufactured without aid of power. The original authority did not accept the supplier’s certificate and held that assessee has failed to produce verifiable certificate/document in support of the claim for “CVD” exemption. The Commissioner (Appeals) also upheld OIO while quoting from Materials and Technology (Vol. II) by Longman DeBussy (1973 Addition).
2. Ld. Chartered Accountant submitted that in similar appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals) had granted benefit by accepting supplier’s certificate. In those matters, Revenue had come in appeal before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue’s appeal in the case of Commissioner v. Dujodala Products Ltd., 1997 (96) E.L.T. 195 which was again followed in CC, Madras v. Sudharsan Pine Products Ltd., 1999 (111) E.L.T. 78 (T). He submitted that issue being covered appeal is required to be allowed.
3. On the other hand, ld. DR, Shri C. Mani read out Commissioner (Appeals) order and the conclusion drawn by him from the manufacturing process that rosin was manufactured with the aid of power. He submitted that assessee has not proved their claim for grant of benefit.
4. On a careful consideration of the submissions, we notice from the extracted portion from the said technical book, there is no indication that for extraction of Rosin there is use of power. The conclusion has been drawn by the Commissioner on his reading of the manner in which rosin is obtained from pine tree and the distillation process which accompany the extraction. In the present case, appellants have imported Rosin WW grade (rosin manufactured without aid of power) as certified by the supplier from China. Similar certificates were accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals) in that case Revenue was aggrieved with such order. However, Tribunal did not accept the Revenue’s contention and held that supplier’s certificate certifying the item ought to have been obtained without aid of power is required to be accepted for granting benefit in the light of noted judgment. In view of Tribunal having already decided this, we are required to follow the ratio thereof. Respectfully following the same, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.