2016 (1) TMI 200 - AT - Central Excise

Clearance of yarn without payment of duty to job workers - permission was granted during the relevant period - Held that - apart from third parties, one s own unit located outside can also be a job worker. - the letter was duly acknowledged by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Kovilpatti Division dated 05.10.2011 and the department never disputed its grant of permission The permission dated 29.03.2001 and the appellant s letter dated 05.10.2011 were placed before this Tribunal. Thus, the contention of the department that there existed no permission for the movement of yarn is incorrect. The assesse is entitled to remove processed yarn without payment of duty to its own factory at Cuddalore during the period of dispute in terms of Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules 2001 read with Notification No.47/2004 dated 22.09.2004. Accordingly all the three assesse s appeals are allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of rules regarding clearance of goods for processing without payment of duty.
2. Existence of permission for clearance of yarn without payment of duty.
3. Effect of permission granted by the Assistant Commissioner for clearance of yarn.
4. Applicability of old Central Excise Rules to permissions granted under new rules.
5. Dispute over the existence of permission for movement of yarn.

Analysis:

1. The Tribunal addressed the interpretation of rules governing the clearance of goods for processing without payment of duty. The case involved two factories owned by the appellant, where one factory sent goods to the other for processing under specific rules and notifications.

2. The main issue revolved around the existence of permission for the clearance of yarn without payment of duty from one factory to another. The appellant argued that explicit permission was granted by the Assistant Commissioner for this movement, which was crucial for their operations.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the effect of the permission granted by the Assistant Commissioner for the clearance of yarn. The High Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal to determine the factual existence of this permission, emphasizing the importance of addressing all aspects of the case.

4. The case highlighted the transition from the old Central Excise Rules to the new rules in 2001. The appellant contended that permissions granted under the old rules were deemed valid under the new rules, which was acknowledged by the department and supported by relevant documentation.

5. There was a dispute over the existence of permission for the movement of yarn between the factories. The Tribunal examined the documents presented by the appellant, including letters from the Assistant Commissioner and acknowledgments from the department, to conclude that the permission indeed existed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed all three appeals of the assessee, confirming their entitlement to remove processed yarn without payment of duty based on the permissions granted under the Central Excise Rules. The detailed analysis of the issues involved and the factual evidence presented played a crucial role in reaching this decision.