9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (12) TMI 287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oth sides. 3. The demand for duty has been made on two counts. The first count relates to a quantity of blended yarn of wool and viscose sold to a buyer at Amritsar. Subsequent to the commencement of the investigations relating to the appellant, this quantity was located at Amritsar and seized and tested for composition. The test showed it to contain 49.4% (sic) condu wool of 49.4% (sic) and the balance of man-made fibre of cellulosic origin. The price has been made up of viscose. The Collector concluded that since the predominent yarn was viscose it should be classifiable as viscose yarn eligible to duty and not as woollen yarn exempted from duty. This was also the base for confiscation. Advocate for the appellants points out that the lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in 5 lots to a sister concern Pushya Woollen Mills. The basis for the allegation was that one of the packing slips in the appellant s factory was found to contain the entry Go Go Delhi dated 5-8-1986. The notice alleges at para 16.2 that 3 more packing slips for such dutiable yarn were found which appeared to show clearance of the yarn to M/s. Go Go Agencies at Delhi. It has not mentioned any details as a base for such a conclusion. The record of Pushya Woollen Industries show that it had cleared 6019.650 kilos of blended yarn to Go Go. The fact that the count of yarn found in the 6 packing slips in the appellant s factory and cleared by Pushya Woollen Industries 2/32, 2/70 and 2/36 and the total weight of goods cleared from Pushya Woolle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entory tallied (except for the part lot of 1A). If the goods were present at the factory when the officers visited it is not possible that they would earlier have been cleared. The Collector has merely gone by the fact that yarn apparently of a similar quantity and similar composition had been cleared by Pushya Woollen Mills on 15-8-1986. He does not address himself to the contention that the yarn was present had been seized. Some quantity of lot 1/86 is not accounted for. Although the appellant was not able to say by reference to the register that it has been entered in the RG 1, it was contended that the Superintendent who seized the goods had stated in the cross-examination before the Collector that whatever stock had been seized on 4-9- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
