JUDGMENT
Archana Wadhwa
1. After dispensing with the condition of predeposit of duty and penalty, we take up the appeal itself, inasmuch as the issue lies in a narrow compass. Accordingly, we have heard Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, learned Consultant for the applicants/appellants and Shri D.K. Bhowmick, J.D.R. for the Revenue.
2. The benefit of Notification No. 1/95-CE dated 4.1.95 has been denied to the appellants on the ground that the CT-3 Certificate produced by them has been issued by the Officer-in-Charge of 100% E.O.U. and not by the Central Excise Officer having jurisdiction over E.O.U. Shri Chattopadhyay draws our attention to the Ahmedabad Commissionerate’s Trade Notice No. 81/91 dated 24.7.91 which is to the effect that inasmuch as the 100% E.O.Us. are facing the practical difficulties in obtaining CT-3 Certificate from their jurisdictional Central Excise Officer as and when they require the raw material, it has been decided that pre-authenticated CT-3 booklets be issued to 100% E.O.Us. who may use the same and send a copy to the Range Superintendent for verification purposes. In the present case, we find that the CT-3 Certificate produced by the appellants is duly pre-authenticated by the Customs House. There is also no allegation of mis-utilisation of the benefit of the exemption Notification in question. In this view of the matter, we do not find any merits in the stand taken by the authorities below. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned Orders and allow the appeal with consequential reliefs.
Dictated in the open court.
