9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (2) TMI 367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by Shri D.S. Mindhe, Sr. Manager (Excise) of the appellants unit. In both the cases, Revenue was represented by Shri Satnam Singh, ld. SDR. 3. The appellants were a composite unit operating under the provisions of Rule 49A. The appellants claimed that waste yarn was exempted under Notification 95/61, dated 3-4-1961 as amended by Notification 172/72-C.E. The contention of the party is that definition of waste cotton yarn given therein is merely the description of the yarn and there is no restriction with regard to the stage at which such waste arises. The Assistant Collector has held that as per notifications, 100% pertained to waste yarn which has occurred not in the process of weaving but during the course of beaming, warping, reeling, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cordingly those decisions of the Tribunal are not applicable to the facts of this case. 5. Shri Satnam Singh, ld. SDR appearing for the Revenue submitted that as per proviso to the notification, the notification restricts the exemption to waste yarn arising prior to its removal for weaving. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused records. We find that with reference to the Notification 95/61 has been considered by the Tribunal in the case of Morarjee Goculdas Spg. Wvg. Mills and relevant para 4 of the said order is reproduced as under : The first observation made by the Collector is that waste occurred after removal of the yarn for weaving and, therefore, the benefit of Notification No. 95/61 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Notification No. 13/82, dated 3-2-1982 but since the Collector has confined his discussion to Notification No. 95/61 only we need not consider the coverage of the Notification 172/72. 7. As regards applicability of Notification 172/72, dated 24-7-1972, it is clear that notification restricts exemption to waste yarn arising prior to its removal for weaving. Since the proviso was amended only on 3-2-1982, the restriction comes into force from that date and that proviso is not applicable retrospectively as it was rightly argued on behalf of the appellants. Accordingly, the benefit in terms of Notification 172/72 cannot be denied in the absence of such restriction therein. We also take note of the fact that the issue is similar in Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
