[Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. - In this appeal filed by the Revenue, short point involved is whether benefit of Notification No. 9/99 C.E. is available to M/s. Vaishali Wires.
2. When the matter was called no one appeared on behalf of the Respondents. In fact the notice of hearing sent to them has been returned by the Postal Authorities undelivered on account of incomplete address. However, as the issue involved is in very narrow compass, we take up the appeal for disposal after hearing learned D.R. and perusing records. Shri Ashok Kumar, learned D.R., submitted that benefit of Notification No. 9/99 can be availed of only after filing declaration by the manufacturer; that as per law laid down by Supreme Court in Motiram Tolaram v. U.O.I., and Tribunal decision in Maharashtra Glass and Agro Ltd. v. CCE, , the onus of proof is on the manufacturer who is claiming the benefit of exemption Notification that the condition stipulated therein had been satisfied.
3. We have considered the submission of the learned D.R. and perused the records. Dy. Commissioner, who adjudicated the matter, had given his findings to the effect that Notification No. 9/99-C.E. stipulated that manufacturer who intends to avail the exemption has to exercise his option in writing. Deputy Commissioner has also mentioned in the Adjudicating Order that respondents had filed declaration which contains all the prescribed information in the Notification. We also find Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned order, has given his specific findings that there is no mention in the Notification that for exercising option separate letter has to be given to the department and since information required had already been submitted on the body of the classification declaration, the benefit of the Notification cannot be denied to them. We are in full agreement with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. Accordingly we reject the appeal filed by the Revenue.