9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (8) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Member (J)]. - The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-original dated 9-11-1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur. In the impugned order the Collector of Central Excise confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,94,257.02 under Section 11A of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The Collector also ordered confiscation of goods pertai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of the appellant and checked the clearance of man-made yarn in which the results of blended yarn was different from the parties declaration. A show cause notice was issued keeping in view the chemical results to show cause as to why the Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 2,40,978.76 should not be recovered from the appellant under the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11 samples were sent for retesting and out of result of retesting result of three samples were in favour of the party. Ld. Counsel further submitted that in the impugned order the Collector of Central Excise held that yarn under dispute is classifiable under Tariff Item 18-III(ii) of the Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act. Ld. Counsel submits that Tribunal in the case of appellant M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record it is proved that the appellants mis-declared the quantum NCSW (Viscose) in the blended yarn. He submits that the report of the Chemical Examiner corroborates this fact. He therefore prays that the appeal be dismissed. 4. In this case total 165 samples were taken from the man-made yarn and were sent for chemical tests. Only 11 samples were found to be different from the description o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g reports. There are cuttings and over-writings in the mixing reports. The Tribunal in the appellants own case vide Final Order Nos. E/161-162/91-D dated 16-3-1991 held that spun yarn manufactured by the appellant is classifiable under Tariff Item No. 18-III(i) and in view of the fact that Chemical Examiner did not have any equipment which would determine whether the matter was polyester fibre or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
