ORDER
C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)
1. The issue involved is grant of exemption under Notification No. 175/86 to the respondent. The respondent is a small scale manufacturer. They manufacture resin bonded Bamboo Mats falling under sub-heading 4408.90 of the CETA, 1985. They also manufacture phenol formaldehyde resin falling under sub-heading 3909.51. They claimed for the financial year 1990-91, exemption upto Rs. 20,00,000 for clearances in respect of Bamboo Mats and Rs. 10,00,000 in respect of phenol formaldehyde resin. The original authority denied them the benefit in respect of clearance of phenol formaldehyde resin on the ground that they had exceeded total clearances of the goods upto Rs. 30,00,000 before claim for exemption for phenol formaldehyde resin was made, even though, the total quantity of Bamboo Mats cleared under exemption, was only Rs. 20,00,000, leaving further Rs. 10,00,000 for duty free clearance. Collector (Appeals) set aside this order and allowed the benefit of Rs. 10,00,000 duty free clearance in respect of phenol formaldehyde resin. In passing this order, Collector (Appeals) was following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Purushotham Gokuldas Plywood Company v. CCE -1990 (47) E.L.T. 30 (T). The Revenue are in appeal before us against this order of the Collector (Appeals).
2. Both sides submit that the Tribunal’s order in Purushotham Gokuldas Plywood Company case has not been set aside by any higher authority. Collector (Appeals) was therefore correct in following this order as he was bound by that order. In the present appeal also, no error has been pointed out in the Tribunal decision for us to take a different view. In these facts and circumstances, we find no merit in the appeal of the Revenue. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.