1996 (3) TMI 365 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Demand of duty based on processes not covered by exemption Notification 297/79
- Interpretation of processes carried out on fabrics by the appellants
- Reliance on documents and evidence by the lower authority
- Calculation of duty based on chemicals used in processing fabrics
- Requirement of padding and stentering for man-made fabrics
- Remand for re-quantification of duty amount

Interpretation of Processes:
The appellants were demanded duty for processes not covered by an exemption notification. The appellants argued that they mainly carried out padding with natural starch on cotton and man-made fabrics based on customer orders. However, the lower authority relied on the appellants' program books and material requisition slips to conclude that chemicals were used in processing, including padding and softening chemicals. The appellants contested this, stating that stentering was only done in some cases and they were willing to pay duty for that. They argued that the lower authority's findings were based on presumption rather than evidence.

Reliance on Evidence:
The lower authority's decision was based on the appellants' documents due to poor record maintenance. The authority drew a parallel between chemicals drawn from stores and fabrics processed, concluding duty based on the amount of fabrics processed with chemicals. The appellants disputed this method, stating that duty was already paid for clearances and chemicals were not always required for processing fabrics received. They also claimed that technical requirements for padding and stentering in man-made fabrics were not considered.

Calculation of Duty:
The appellants requested a re-quantification of duty based on the criteria in the lower authority's order, specifically considering padding with chemicals and stentering for man-made fabrics. The tribunal observed that while the lower authority correctly noted the use of chemicals, they failed to quantify the fabrics that could have been processed with chemicals. As a result, the tribunal set aside the lower authority's order and remanded the matter for a fresh adjudication, allowing the appellants an opportunity to be heard.

Conclusion:
The tribunal found the lower authority's order lacking in proper quantification of fabrics processed with chemicals and remanded the case for re-evaluation. The appeal was allowed by remand, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive assessment based on the principles outlined in the previous order.