Full Judgment
2. On appeal by the respondents herein the lower appellate authority has held that benefit of notification cannot be denied to TR Oil as well as Det Oil. Benefit to TR OH was extended by the lower authority on the ground that no condition whatsoever is appended in respect of that oil for extending the benefit of exemption 101/66-C.E., dated 17-6-1966 to TR Oil.
3. In respect of Det Oil the Collector (Appeals) found that it is an Organic Surface Active Agent preparation containing soap on the basis of the Dy. Chief Chemist report given by the later in the context of 208/69-C.E. Benefit of Notification 101 /66-C.E. is admissible to a product if in, or in relation to manufacture or packing of said OSAA or OSAA preparation, no process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power or with steam or heating. It is not disputed by the Revenue, as found by the appellate authority, that no process was carried out with the aid of power or steam. Therefore the benefit of the said Notification has been extended to the respondents in respect of the other product namely, Det Oil. The lower appellate authority has also considered the alternative submissions of the respondents herein regarding benefit of notification under Notification No. 71/78-C.E. and later on Notification No. 80/80-C.E. The said authority has held that the Assistant Collector's finding, in denying the benefit of the aforesaid two notifications, to the effect that these are not applicable to clearance for captive consumption is not correct.
Consequently the appeal was allowed in favour of the respondents herein. Hence this appeal before the Tribunal filed by the Revenue.
4. Learned JDR Shri R.S. Sangia draws our attention to the grounds of appeal mentioned in the memo of appeal of the Revenue. The ground is based on the report of the Dy. Chief Chemist regarding specifications of the product and on that basis it is stated that benefit of Notification 101/66 cannot be extended. We have heard the learned JDR.We do not find any substance in this ground of the appeal. Report of Dy. Chief Chemist regarding specifications was in the context of Notification No. 208/69-C.E. and not in the context of Notification of 101/66-C.E. Those specifications do not come in the way of extending to appellants benefit of Notification 101/66-C.E. Therefore reliance placed by the Revenue is not at all, correct and it does not advance the case of the Revenue. We do not find any infirmity in the Collector (Appeals) order. Consequently we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue.
5. Cross-objections filed by the respondents are also not maintainable because a complete relief was given to the respondents by the lower appellate authority. Hence they are not entitled to file any cross-objection.