9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (3) TMI 288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation raising certain points as arising out of the same Appellate Order of the Tribunal in E/ROM/20 and 35/90-D, had been disposed of by the Order No. Misc. 256/90-D dated 25-10-1990 in which certain errors, apparent, had also been corrected by the Tribunal. Addressing arguments on the present and the second application, Shri R. Santhanam, General Manager (Legal) of the applicants submitted that certain apparent errors had arisen out of the Tribunal s order-in-appeal cited above. It was urged that during the adjudication proceedings before the Collector in Appeal No. E/1485, the applicants had, specifically the Collector by a letter dated 30-9-1987 that adjustment of duty already paid must be made and credit for the duty paid on the mono-fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d was that the Department has raised further demand of duty on mother yarn equivalent to the duty already paid on split yarn for the period 1-3-1986 to 28-2-1988 and it was pleaded that pending final decision to be taken by the Collector and/or Tribunal the same should be stayed. Thereafter in the matter of adjustment of duty already paid on split yarn against the duty demanded on mother yarn, the Department should be directed not to raise any demand. It was urged that this can be done by the Tribunal in exercise of its inherent powers. Shri Santhanam also pointed out that during the submissions made before the Tribunal, arguments on marketability had been addressed and therefore, the Tribunal s observations that there was no such argument ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seized and confiscated, the Tribunal had given a clear finding. In view of the finding already given by us that mother yarn itself is dutiable under item 18-II(i)(a) of Central Excise Tariff, its removal to an unauthorised and unapproved place from the place of manufacture without assessment of duty, thereon, would constitute an offence under Rule 9(2) and to that extent, the Collector s finding that the goods were liable to confiscation is well founded". Therefore, the Tribunal had found that there was violation of Rule 9(2) and upheld confiscation. It was not a case of short levy under Section 11A simplicitor. Regarding the submissions that the Tribunal in its order should have directed that duty already paid on split yarn should be s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
