PerG.R. Sharma :

These 15 appeals have been filed by the Revenue being aggrieved by the order of Commissioner (Appeals) holding that "I find from the above and perusal of the Notf. No. 9/99 that there is no mention in the notification, for exercising the option on a separate letter giving therein the information required to be filed. But what is required for availing the benefit of notification is that the manufacturer has to exercise his option and furnish the informations required under the notification. Since, in these cases, the informations required have already been submitted on the body of the classification declaration filed by the respondents and having been satisfied with that information, the adjudicating authority extended the benefit of the notification to the respondents. Besides, I also find that the adjudicating authority while passing the impugned order relied upon the decisions of the Tribunal which have also been referred by the respondents supra and an Order-in-Appeal No. 144-CE/IND/REV/99/44 dt. 4.1.2000 has been passed by this office in a similar case. The appellants in their grounds of appeal failed not only to give any reasons for not accepting the reasoned order of the adjudicating authority who had cited the order of the appellate authorities but also failed to give any reasons for not accepting the decisions of the appellate authorities cited in the impugned order of the adjudicating officer. The main ground of appellants is that for exercising the benefit of the information required under the notification, the respondents should have filed a declaration on a separate letter and not on the body of the classification/declaration. Since, separate letter is not a requirement under the notification, the appeals of the appellants fails on merit. The impugned orders are sustainable which are legally correct."

2. The facts of the case are that the respondents claimed concessional rate of duty under Notf. No. 9/99 dt. 28.2.99. SCNs were issued to the assessees asking them to explain as to why the benefit of Notf. No. 9/99 should not be denied to them in the absence of required option letter to the Assistant Commissioner of jurisdiction in terms of para 2 of the said notification. The Assistant Commissioner adjudicating the SCN dropped the proceedings. This order of the Assistant Commissioner was reviewed and appeals were filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) held as indicated above in the preceding paragraph and hence the Revenue filed these appeals.

3. Arguing the cases for the Revenue, Shri M.P. Singh, ld. DR submits that in the instant cases, the assessees had not filed an option letter but had claimed the benefit of Notf. No. 9/99 dt. 28.2.99 while filing classification list. He submits that in terms of para 2 of the notification an option letter was required to be filed for availing the benefit of Notf. No. 9/99. He submits that the benefit was available only from the date from which the option under this notification has been exercised. He submits that in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) there is no indication as to when the option was exercised by the assessee for availing the benefit of Notf. No. 9/99. He submits that the date of exercising the option is necessary for providing the benefit; that for availing the benefit of notification, the notification number has to be mentioned on the body of classification declaration under Rule 173B; that the condition under para 2 of the Notf. No. 9/99 cannot be treated as merely a procedural condition subsequently in view of the stipulation in condition No. 2 (1) which prescribes that an option once exercised cannot be withdrawn during remaining part of the Financial Year. He submits that therefore the benefit of the notification shall be available only from the date of exercising the option till 31st March of the year. He, therefore prays that the order may be modified.

4. Shri L.P. Asthana, ld. Advocate and Shri As