- (1.)In this appeal by the revenue, against the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the tribunal') , the short question that arises for consideration is: whether the order under challenge is sustainable in law
(2.)The only point dealt with by the tribunal is Whether the respondent-assessee was eligible for exemption under notification no. 120/1975-CE dated 30th April, 1975 (for short, 'the exemption notification').
(3.)The assessee manufactures hand knitting machines and sells them, in bulk, to M/s. Singer Sewing Machine company (for short, 'm/s. Singer'). It claimed benefit of the notification. (The superintendent, central excise, issued a notice dated 16th July, 1976 to the assessee to show cause as to why the benefit of the exemption notification should not be denied to it. On 3rd January, 1979, the assistant collector of central excise, Thane, division I, accepted the contention of the assessee extending the benefit of the notification. However, the collector (appeals) issued a show cause notice on 24 December, 1979 calling upon the assessee to show cause as to why the benefit of the notification should not be denied and consequentially, made a demand for the differential duty of Rs. 18,55,570. 69 by revising the order of the assistant collector. On appeal, against the order of the collector (appeals) , the tribunal, by the impugned order, held that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. It is against that order, the revenue is in appeal before us.