1995 (12) TMI 179 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay regarding the duty on acrylic yarn.

Detailed Analysis:

The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. The dispute arose from the processing of Rayon and Synthetic Yarn by the respondents, made from Cashmilon fiber, leading to the production of yarn through spinning and dyeing processes. The Revenue alleged that the respondents cleared 100% acrylic textured yarn without paying the Central Excise Duty leviable under T.I. 18. The Assistant Collector confirmed the duty demand, which was upheld by the Appellate Collector and the Revision Petition by the Government of India. However, the Bombay High Court set aside all previous orders and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector for a fresh determination. The Assistant Collector, upon review, dropped the proceedings due to lack of evidence showing that the cleared yarn was bulked yarn, leading to the Revenue's appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.

During the proceedings, the Revenue argued that the yarn processed by the respondents became bulked yarn after dyeing, citing industry definitions and processes. They contested the reliability of the test report by SASMIRA, as the samples were tested post-High Court remand and not in the presence of the Department's Officer. On the other hand, the respondents' counsel supported the impugned order. The Assistant Collector, based on the test report, concluded that the yarn received by the respondents did not have bulking properties, supported by invoices and affidavits. The Collector (Appeals) affirmed this finding, highlighting the lack of Department tests on the yarn and denial of natural justice to the respondents. The Collector (Appeals) granted the respondents the benefit of doubt, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal.

Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the findings of the lower authorities, emphasizing the correctness of the test report and the genuineness of the samples. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, stating that the literature cited by the Revenue did not undermine the findings based on the test report. Therefore, the appeal against the Order-in-Appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision in favor of the respondents.