2017 (7) TMI 283 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine manufacture and removal - It is the case of the Revenue that appellant had dispatched processed manmade fabrics in the guise of cotton fabrics by claiming an ineligible exemption. While it is the case of the appellant that the samples which were drawn by the authorities do not match with the lot register maintained by the appellant in the factory premises and there is no evidence indicating that there was clandestine manufacture and removal of manmade fabrics - Held that - the merchant manufacturers have given a declaration, we find that the said declaration as per the N/N. 305/77 is only in respect of payment of differential duty in the case of final assessment, if there are findings that selling price declared by the merchant manufacturers are incorrect. The Revenue s case in this appeal is not that the selling price was incorrect. In view of this, this argument of the appellant also fails. The test results of the samples would be applicable only to those consignments wherein the samples were drawn - the findings recorded by the adjudicating authority while dropping the demands, raised by holding that there are no test reports to confirm that the goods were manmade fabrics, are correct and legal. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Determination of excise duty liability on processed fabrics, Allegation of dispatching manmade fabrics as cotton fabrics, Application of test results on samples drawn, Liability of merchant manufacturers, Correctness of adjudicating authority's decision.

Analysis:

1. Excise Duty Liability: The case involved an appeal against the confirmation of a demand of excise duty amounting to ?44,34,402 on the appellant, a processor of cotton and manmade fabrics. The appellant processed fabrics received from merchant manufacturers and discharged excise duty based on information provided by the manufacturers. The dispute arose when samples tested by Revenue authorities revealed that manmade fabrics were being dispatched as cotton fabrics, leading to the duty demand.

2. Dispatch of Manmade Fabrics: The appellant contended that the samples tested did not match their records and argued that they were only processing fabrics as per instructions from merchant manufacturers. However, the adjudicating authority found that the samples tested were indeed manmade fabrics, indicating that the appellant was dispatching processed manmade fabrics as cotton fabrics, availing an ineligible exemption.

3. Application of Test Results: The Revenue claimed that the test results of samples drawn from various places, including the appellant's premises, proved the dispatch of manmade fabrics. The adjudicating authority's decision to rely on these test results was upheld, concluding that the appellant was involved in clearing manmade fabrics in the guise of cotton fabrics.

4. Liability of Merchant Manufacturers: The appellant argued that any duty liability should fall on the merchant manufacturers who provided declarations under Notification No. 305/77. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that processing activities amount to manufacturing, making the processor liable for excise duty, irrespective of declarations by merchant manufacturers.

5. Correctness of Decision: The Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's decision to drop demands where samples were not drawn and tested, citing a previous judgment. It found no error in the authority's conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to confirm the dispatch of manmade fabrics in cases where samples were not tested.

In conclusion, the appeals filed by both the appellant and the Revenue were rejected, affirming the demand of excise duty on processed fabrics dispatched by the appellant. The judgment emphasized the importance of test results, the liability of processors for excise duty, and the correct application of legal principles in determining duty liabilities.