9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SDR for the respondent and perused the records. 3. The present appeals arise from a common order dated 19th September 2005 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Gurgaon. By the impugned order, the appeals filed by the appellants against the order passed by the adjudicating authority have been dismissed. The adjudicating authority vide its order dated 30th April, 1998 had confirmed the demand of Rs. 4,48,311.23 against the appellants. The proceedings were initiated pursuant to the issuance of two show cause notices dated 28-5-97. 4. The appellants were engaged in the processing of woollen fabrics assessable under erstwhile Tariff Item No. 21 of Central Excise Tariff Act and they were availing exemption under Notification No. 30/81-C.E., d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment for the purpose of the development of hand- looms. Ultimately, before the Tribunal, this contention of the Revenue was rejected. What the Tribunal considered, and held in favour of the Revenue, was that the appellants had not show that they were producing the woollen fabrics in "a factory owned by" each of them. 2. It does not appear that at any stage of the proceedings the appellants had been required to show that the factories in which they produced the woollen fabrics were owned by them. The order of the Tribunal refusing them the exemption of this ground must, therefore, be set aside. 3. If it is the case of the Revenue that the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of the exemption under the said Notification by reason of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pex Court order had clearly permitted the Department to initiate fresh proceedings on the same ground. 8. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants while assailing the impugned order, submitted that the Apex Court in the above referred order, had clearly held that the authorities including the Tribunal erred in refusing the ex emption under the said Notification in the matter in hand as at no stage of proceedings, the appellants were required to show that the factory in which they wore producing woollen fabrics were owned by them and thus decided the matter on merits in favour of the appellants and thus the dispute in relation to the period in question stands concluded by the said decision. 9. On the other hand, the learned SDR drawin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of the Revenue that the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of the exemption under the said Notification by reason of the fact that the appellants do not own the factories in which the woollen fabrics are produced, the Revenue must give to the appellants a notice to show cause in this regard and the matter must be processed from that stage". The said observation cannot be construed to mean that the Department was permitted to initiate fresh action in relation to the period for which the proceedings were already concluded in favour of the appellants by virtue of Supreme Court decision. It was the case of the Revenue that the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of ex emption under the said notification. It was permitted to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
