ORDER : 1. The present appeal under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short "the Act") has been filed by the Revenue impugning order No. 109/02-C dated 15th April, 2002 in Appeal No. E/2509/01-C passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short "the Tribunal"). The Tribunal, by the impugned order, has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and set aside the order passed by the Commissioner affirming the demand created in the show cause notice dated 2nd of March, 2001 and held that the respondent-assessee (assessee) is entitled to avail the benefit of the exemption Notification No. 5/99-C.E. dated 28th February, 1999. 2. Facts giving rise to the present appeal in brief are : That the assessee has two factories - one, bearing No. 33 situated at Roz Ka Meo, Industrial Area Sohna, District Gurgaon (Haryana) and the other bearing No. 51 situated at Roz Ka Meo, Industrial Area Sohna, District Gurgaon (Haryana) in the same name and style. The assessee is engaged in manufacturing plastic pet jars, bottles, capes etc. falling under Chapter Heading 3923.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In the first factory the assessee were availing the benefit of Notification No. 5/99-C.E. in respect of the goods manufactured therein while in the second factory the assessees were clearing the goods on payment of duty at full tariff rates and were availing the benefit of MODVAT credit of duty paid on the inputs received in this factory. Benefit of the notification was denied to the assessee on the ground that the assessee was availing the benefit of MODVAT credit in respect of the inputs of the first factory. The contention of the assessee was that the condition in the notification is in respect of the goods manufactured in the factory whereas the Revenue's case was that exemption is available to the manufacturer and not to the goods as the assessee was one and the same person, manufacturing such goods in both the units; since in one of the units owned by the assessee was availing the MODVAT credit, the exemption was not available under the Notification. As against this contention of the assessee was that in the unit where the benefit of notification is being availed, the assessee was not having any MODVAT credit in respect of any other product, therefore, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the notification in question. Condition No. 10 of the Notification No. 5/99-C.E. dated 28th February, 1999 which is under consideration is as under : "10. The manufacturer does not avail of credit of duty paid under rule 57A or 57B on the products mentioned in column (2) or on any other product manufactured in the same factory." The demand created under the Show cause notice was confirmed by the authority in original, aggrieved against which the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal, which has been accepted by the impugned order. The Tribunal held as under : "8. Reading of the above condition provides that if the manufacturer has not availed the MODVAT credit in respect of the duty paid of inputs in respect of the goods mentioned in column No. 2 or any other product manufactured in the same factory benefit of notification is available in respect of the specified goods. The intention of the notification is to put restriction on the manufacturer not to avail the credit of duty on the product in respect of which the exemption is availed or on any other product manufactured in the same factory. The condition No. 10 of the notification does not mention that the manufacturer could not avail the MODVAT credit in all the factories under him.........." 3. We agree with the view taken by the Tribunal and find no ground to interfere with the same. The appeal is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.