JUDGMENT

Kapadia, J.—The short question of law involved in this matter is—whether irrespective of the assessees having not followed or substantially followed Chapter X procedure under the Central Excise Rules, 1944, they would still be entitled to the benefit of notification No. 121/94-CE dated 11-8-1994 as held in the case of Thermax Private Ltd. v Collector of Customs reported in 1992 (61) ELT 352, which is to the effect that, the benefit of concession should be given when intended use of material can be established by other evidence.

2. This case is a sequel to the case of the assessees in civil appeal nos. 5747-5749 of 2000 decided by this court on 30-9-2005 and, therefore, we are not required to restate the facts. Suffice it to state that the assessee-firms were manufacturer of branded chewing tobacco (final product) from “additive mixture” (kimam). The said “kimam” was manufactured by the units of the assessees in Delhi and the said kimam was stock transferred to the assessees’ units in UP and HP. We have held in our judgment in civil appeal nos. 5747-5749 of 2000 that this kimam was excisable and classifiable under sub-heading 2404.49/2404.40 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985