9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... including that in respect of the Dyeing machines, had been utilized by M/s. Purvi prior to 1-8-99. The appellant filed a classification declaration No. 6/77-2000 effective from 1-3-2000 claiming concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 6/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000 (S. Nos. 133 and 134 of the table annexed to the Notification) in respect of dyed yarn falling under sub headings 5402.32, 5402.39, 5402.43, 5402.52, 5402.62, 5509.50, 5509.60, 5509.90, 5510.11, 55:10.12, 5510.90, 5205.11, 5205.19, 5206.11 and 5206.12 of the Tariff. S. No. 133 of the exemption notification provided a concessional rate of duty for the dyed, printed, bleached or mercerized yarn of heading/sub-headings 51.06, 51.07, 5205.11, 5205.19, 5206.11, 5206.12, 5509.19, 5509.21, 5509.22, 5509.31, 5509.32, 5509.41, 5509.42, 5509.50, 5509.60, 5509.90, 5510.11, 5510.12 and 5510.90 of the tariff, produced in a factory not having facility for producing single yarn, subject to condition that the dyed, printed, bleached or mercerized yarn has been manufactured out of duty paid yarn of chapter 51, 52, 54 or 55 of the Tariff and no credit has been availed under Rules 57A or 57B or 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant. The appellant neither inherited any capital goods credit from M/s. Purvi, nor availed any capital goods duty credit. Since other conditions of the Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. are satisfied and the appellant have not availed any input on capital goods duty credit, they are eligible for the exemption. It is not correct to deny duty exemption to the appellant on the ground that the previous owner - M/s. Purvi had taken and availed capital goods duty credit in respect of the machinery for dying of yarn. (2) With effect from 1-4-2000, the condition for exemption under Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. (S. Nos. 133 and 134) was changed from - "no credit under Rule 57A or 5Th or 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 has been availed in the process of dyeing " by - "no credit under Rule 57AB or 57AK of Central Excise Rules, 1944, has been availed in the process of dyeing,-----" Thus, with effect from 1- 4-2000, the Notification No. 6/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000 (S. Nos. 133 and 134) is deniable only if no credit has been availed under Rule 57AB or 57AK. Admittedly, the credit availed by M/s. Purvi was under Rule 57Q, not under Rule 57AB or 57AK. Hence the benefit of this notificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fabrics of Chapters 52, 54, 55 and 60 and dyed yarn of Chapters 54 & 55 of the tariff. They had taken over the plant and machinery from its previous owner M/s. Purvi w.e.f. 1-8-1999. There is no dispute about the facts that - (a) M/s. Purvi, the previous owner of the plant and machinery, had taken capital goods duty credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in respect of dyeing plant and machinery and prior to the taking over the plant and machinery by the present owner - the appellant, had utilized the same fully; (b) The appellant had neither inherited any modvat credit nor availed any modvat credit in respect of inputs or capital goods, under Rules 57A, 57 B and 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 after taking over the plant from the previous owners; and (c) Even after 31st March, 2000, the appellant have not taken any input duty credit or capital goods duty credit under Rule 57AB or 57AK of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 4. The point of dispute is as to whether during the period from 1-3-2000 to 9-6-2000 the appellant are eligible for concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. (Sl. Nos. 133 and 134 of the table annexed to the Notification) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al goods modvat credit in respect of dyeing machinery and had fully utilized the same prior to the taking over of the plant by the appellant. It is not the plea of the appellant that at the time of taking over of the plant by them, the previous owner had reversed the capital goods credit in respect of dyeing machinery as per the provisions of Rule 57-S(2)(b) of Central Excise Rules. In view of this, the dyeing machinery in respect of which the previous owner M/s. Purvi had taken the capital goods duty credit and had utilized the same would have to be treated as machinery in respect of which the duty credit under Rule 57Q had been availed. Therefore, so far as period from 1-3-2000 to 31-3-2000 is concerned, the appellant' do not satisfy the condition of the notification. 7. It has been pleaded by the appellant that at least w.e.f. 1-4-2000 they would be eligible for the exemption, as w.e.f. 1-4-2000 one of the condition for this exemption was that no credit has been availed under Rule 57AB or 57AK, in the process of dyeing, printing, bleaching or mercerizing in the manufacture of dyed, printed, bleached or mercerized yarn, and there is no dispute about the fact that no credit eithe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
