9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned order, it has been held that Notification No. 214/86-C.E., dated 25-3-1986 had excluded the filament yarn from the purview of the said Notification. - There is no dispute that the raw materials were sent under challan and finished products were returned to the principal. There is also no dispute that the principal had paid duty on the finished product. In these circumstances, the requirement o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on job work basis and for this purpose, they were availing benefit of Cenvat Credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002/2004 (hereinafter referred to as CCR). In the impugned order, it has been held that Notification No. 214/86-C.E., dated 25-3-1986 had excluded the filament yarn from the purview of the said Notification. Accordingly, he has demanded duty of Rs. 46,28,786/- with interest and has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CR as now amended to exclude PTY, confiscation and penalty are not warranted and clearances effected under impugned Rule cannot be held to be irregular. He cites the following decisions in this regard: (i) Gayatri Textiles Others v. CCE, Salem reported in 2006-TIOL-1710-CESTAT MAD. (ii) CCE, Vapi v. Sunflag Filaments Ltd. reported in 2008 (224) E.L.T. 281 (Tri.-Ahmd.). (iii) Vijayalaxmi Te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot very different from each other. There is no dispute that the raw materials were sent under challan and finished products were returned to the principal. There is also no dispute that the principal had paid duty on the finished product. In these circumstances, the requirement of provisions of Rule 4(5)(a) of CCR have not been fulfilled. We also find that the Tribunal's decisions cited by the lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
