9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (8) TMI 249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 90 for cotton fabrics and Notification No. 44/95, dated 16-3-1995 for man-made fabrics inasmuch as the exemption was not available to the units having facilities (including plant and equipment) for carrying out bleaching, dyeing or printing or any one or more of these processes. The alleged duty short paid vide above wrong exemption was Rs. 3,95,694.71 on cotton fabrics and Rs. 2,88,745.45 on man-made fabrics. During the period May, 1995 to Sept., 1995 appellants replied to the said show cause notice vide their letter dated 18-1-1996 stating therein that their excise clerk had committed a mistake by wrongly quoting Notification No. 110/90, dated 16-5-1990 for cotton fabrics and Notification No. 44/95, dated 16-3-1995 for man-made fabrics in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that the Notification No. 110/90, dated 16-5-1990 quoted in the notice was the notification amending the original Notification No. 253/82, dated 8-11-1982 for cotton fabrics which has been rescinded by Notification No. 71/95, dated 16-3-1995 and therefore it was not applicable during the relevant period. What was relevant was Notification No. 40/95, dated 16-3-1995 which initially contained that it would not be applicable to factory having facilities for carrying out bleaching, dyeing or printing or any one or more of these process with the aid of power or steam. This condition was omitted by the amending Notification No. 83/95, dated 24-4-1995. Similarly in respect of man-made fabrics earlier Notification No. 297/79, dated 24-11-1979 w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as stated appellants are not entitled for benefit of Notification No. 44/95 as they are engaged in processing of fabrics by bleaching, dyeing, or printing etc. Whereas this notification is applicable to man-made fabrics only, thus the order is silent about cotton fabrics. Hence confirmation of demand in respect of cotton fabrics without final order to the extent is totally wrong. 3. The appellants have filed Writ petition before the High Court and by order dated 3-3-1998 the High Court has directed this office that hearing of stay application should be done as expeditiously as possible. Since matter is taken up out of turn as per High Court s order, it is taken for final decision. 4. A personal hearing was fixed on 31-3-1998 S/Shri Sanj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 95. They are very much entitled for the same. The question regarding claiming of the same, there are plethora of decisions, wherein it is held that even it is not claimed, if otherwise admissible, the benefit should not be denied. I have also seen the sample declarations filed under Rule 173B along with price declarations about the disputed products, Appellants have specifically mentioned on the same that subjected goods are received for calendering process only. 6. Apart department has neither in show cause notice nor in the impugned order has proved that the fabrics under disputes had also undergone the processes other than calendering process as claimed by the appellants. 7. In view of the above, set aside the Assistant Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
