1998 (8) TMI 249 - Commissioner - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against demands on cotton fabrics and man-made fabrics under incorrect exemption notifications.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the demands confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner for alleged wrongful availment of exemptions on cotton fabrics and man-made fabrics. The appellants claimed that they had mistakenly quoted incorrect notifications for exemption and requested to consider the correct notifications. They argued that they had only undertaken the calendering process on the fabrics, not the processes like bleaching, dyeing, or printing. The Assistant Commissioner, however, rejected their explanation, stating that the facilities for these processes were available in the appellants' units. The appellants contended that they had declared the fabrics received for job work only for calendering process in their submissions and invoices. They highlighted the correct notifications applicable during the relevant period and emphasized that the Assistant Commissioner did not provide evidence that the fabrics underwent processes other than calendering. The appellants also criticized the lack of a speaking order, as the Assistant Commissioner did not address the issue of cotton fabrics specifically.

The High Court directed an expedited hearing of the stay application related to the case. During the personal hearing, the appellants reiterated their arguments and raised concerns about the denial of natural justice, as their detailed written submissions were allegedly not considered by the Assistant Commissioner. The Commissioner observed that the notifications wrongly mentioned during the declaration were not in force at the relevant time. The notifications that were applicable had waived the condition of non-applicability for units with facilities for bleaching, dyeing, or printing. As the appellants' case fell within the period covered by the correct notifications, they were entitled to the exemptions. The Commissioner noted that the department failed to prove that the fabrics underwent processes other than calendering as claimed by the appellants. Consequently, the Assistant Commissioner's order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.