2017 (1) TMI 25 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of exemption Notification No. 6/2002-CE - Held that - There is no dispute the dyed yarn was manufactured out of duty paid texturised yarn, accordingly the condition of notification stand complied with, merely because at the intermediate stage twisted yarn made that does not alter the duty paid character of the principal yarn i.e. texturised yarn - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with Condition No. 31 of Notification No. 6/2002-CE.
2. Entitlement to exemption for Dyed Polyester Filament Yarn.
3. Interpretation of exemption notification terms.
4. Applicability of precedent judgments.
5. Limitation period for raising the demand.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Compliance with Condition No. 31 of Notification No. 6/2002-CE:
The core issue was whether the respondent complied with Condition No. 31 of Notification No. 6/2002-CE, which requires that the dyed yarn be manufactured from textured or draw-twisted yarn on which the appropriate duty of excise has already been paid. The adjudicating authority initially denied the exemption, arguing that the intermediate twisted yarn was not duty-paid, thus violating Condition No. 31. However, the respondent contended that the duty-paid texturized yarn was used to manufacture the dyed yarn, fulfilling the condition.

2. Entitlement to Exemption for Dyed Polyester Filament Yarn:
The respondent argued that the dyed yarn was manufactured from duty-paid texturized yarn, and the intermediate process of twisting did not alter the duty-paid character of the yarn. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the condition of the notification was met since the final dyed yarn was produced from duty-paid texturized yarn, despite the intermediate stage of twisting.

3. Interpretation of Exemption Notification Terms:
The Tribunal emphasized that the exemption notification should not be interpreted narrowly to defeat its purpose. It was noted that the condition requiring duty-paid yarn referred to the initial texturized yarn, not the intermediate twisted yarn. The Tribunal referenced several judgments supporting a broader interpretation that aligns with the notification's intent.

4. Applicability of Precedent Judgments:
The Tribunal cited several precedents, including:
- Kejariwal Yarns Pvt. Ltd.: Confirming that the starting raw material (duty-paid texturized yarn) satisfies the condition even if an intermediate product (twisted yarn) is created.
- Precot Mills Ltd.: Affirming that the exemption applies if the final product is made from duty-paid yarn, regardless of intermediate processes.
These judgments supported the respondent's position and were deemed directly applicable.

5. Limitation Period for Raising the Demand:
The Tribunal also considered the issue of limitation, noting that the demand was raised beyond the normal period of one year. It was highlighted that the respondent had declared the use of the concessional rate and made entries in statutory records, negating any suppression or misstatement. Therefore, the extended limitation period was not applicable.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, which had set aside the Order-in-Original and allowed the respondent's appeal with consequential relief. The Tribunal confirmed that the respondent had correctly availed the exemption under Notification No. 6/2002-CE, as the dyed yarn was manufactured from duty-paid texturized yarn, and no input stage credit was availed in the dyeing process. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was affirmed.