9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (11) TMI 207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted by Shri M.H. Patil, Advocate accompanied by Shri Arun Mehta, Advocate. 3. Mainly two issues are involved in these appeals : (1) whether Central Excise duty on yarn is leviable on single yarn at spindle point as per the department or duty is payable on doubled yarn at the time of clearance, as claimed by the assessees. (2) whether duty on sized weight of the yarn is payable as per the department or duty is payable on unsized weight of the yarn is claimed by the assessee. 4. Shri Lakhinder Singh, JCDR appearing for the revenue, submitted that issue with reference to levy of single yarn at spindle point is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E., Jaipur v. Banswara Synthetic Ltd. re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this categorical finding that duty is leviable on single yarn at the spindle point, following the ratio of the aforesaid decision, we hold that duty is leviable on single yarn at spindle point. Accordingly, the department succeeds on this issue in all these appeals. 6. As regards second issue, we find that this issue has been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Chemical Co. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1993 (63) E.L.T. 601 white confirming the earlier view in the case of J.K. Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. UOI and Ors. reported in 1987 (32) E.L.T. 234. The observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of J.K. Spg. and Wvg. Mills at Para 46 of the order, is relevant and same is reproduced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assification list and no demand was involved therein. He also referred to the relevant show cause notice and the order passed by the Assistant Collector in support of his contention. He said that consequent to the approval of this classification list, department has raised demand against which the assessee has filed an appeal before the Collector (Appeals) and same was dropped by the Collector allowing the appeal. No appeal has been filed by the department against such an order of dropping the demand. But the department has erroneously shown the demand of Rs. 15,65,594.70 in column No. 8A in Form E-A3 which is wrong. It is replied by Shri Lakhinder Singh, JCDR that since the demand was consequence to the issue and the main issue is concerne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Assistant Collector that duty was leviable on single yarn at spindle point and same has been disturbed by the Collector s order and against which the department has come before us, we are of the view that with reference to the levy of duty on single yarn is not a new point and being the point of law can be raised even at this stage, and on admitting that point and on consideration, accordingly, we hold that duty is leviable on single yarn at spindle point following the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Banswara Synthetics, referred to above. 10. Shri M.H. Patil submitted that the department has taken at random 3 per cent of the clearances quantity as the difference in weight between yarn at the spindle point ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
