Full Judgment
2. Both the respondents had taken benefit of notification 23/89-CE dated 1.3.1989. The notification required certification of certain parameters by the Director of Industries in the State Government or by the Development Commissioner for Cement in the Government of India. The respondent had filed a certificate by the Joint Commissioner of Industries in the State Government. The Assistant Collector denied the benefit on the ground that the conditions prescribed in the notification had not been satisfied. Before the Commissioner (Appeals) the claim was made that in the State Government there was no authority by the name Director of Industries but that the officer was designated as Commissioner of Industries. In the face of this submission, the Collector (Appeals) accepted the certification made by the Joint Commissioner resulting in these appeals by the Revenue.
3. Smt. Reena Arya arguing on the appeals, stressed that the conditions of the notification had to be strictly followed for the benefit to be derived. It was claimed that if there was no designated authority in the State, it was appropriate for the assessee to have gone to Centre for due certification. On this ground the reversal of the orders was sought.
4. We have considered the submissions. We find that the Tribunal in the case of CCE vs. Lyphin Chemicals 1996 (88) ELT 147 had dealt with an identical situation. In notification 234/86 it was prescribed that the certification should be made by a "Drugs Controller". The Tribunal observed as under:- "6. They have submitted that the 'Columns' were fabricated by welding together number of mild steel items like channels, beams, plates etc. to suit the design of the structure to be erected at site by permanently fastening it to the earth. At the stage of clearance, they were not fastened to the earth, they were moveable goods and if was only at the site that they were going to be fixed to the earth. In these circumstances, we agree with the observations of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) that the 'Columns' in these proceedings wee goods. They were also marketable goods.
Accordingly we find no ground to interfere with the order passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. As a result, the appeal is rejected." 5. We find that the judgment would apply to the facts of the present case. We do not find that in producing the certificate from the Joint Director the assessees had lost the benefit of the notification. The impugned orders of the Collector (Appeals) are upheld. The Revenue appeals are dismissed.