MAYUR VALUE CO. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard both sides and perused the case records, Shri S.R. Patanakar, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants states that the appellants are not claiming exemption under Notification No. 217/86 but under Notification No. 1/93. He further submits that the impugned goods, classifiable under Heading 84.81, are eligible for exemption under the said Notification No. 1/93 and since these have been consumed as inputs within the appellants' factory for further manufacture of finished goods, their value of clearance is also required to be excluded under Explanation VI to the said Notification No. 1/93. We find force in the contention of the appellants and their claim to exemption under Notification 1/93 requires to be examined independent of the Notification No. 217/86. As such, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case for de novo decision after affording the appellants a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

(2.) THE appeal is allowed by way of remand. The order of remand was pronounced on the date of hearing of the appeal on 1 -11 -2002.