9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (12) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g under Chapter sub-heading 5409.00. They had filed price list w.e.f. 10-3-1988 which had been approved and they were clearing the goods, in the course of manufacture defective fabrics was coming out as fents and rags which they were clearing under the price list filed by them. On investigation, it was found that they had deliberately cut sound fabrics of continuous length into pieces of length of 70 cms and 80 cms in order to market them as blouse pieces and therefore show cause notice was issued alleging suppression of facts and raising demands of differential) duty on 75,285.66 Sq. M of fents cleared during the period 1-3-1988 to 27-2-1989 by denying exemption Notification No. 6/88, dated 19-1-1988 to an extent of Rs. 68,312.52. Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raised earlier. Before the Addl. Commissioner they had relied on the judgment of Tribunal rendered in Davangere Cotton Mills v. C.C.E. as in 1988 (35) E.L.T. 420 (T) wherein the Tribunal dealt with the exemption of tents and ranges under Notification No. 136/77 and had held that value of fents and rags are to be determined in terms of Section 4 and not on the basis of cotton fabrics. The Addl. Collector did not follow the ratio of this judgment. Hence, they are aggrieved. 6. We have heard ld. SDR who points out to various allegations made in the show cause notice and the findings in the order and also submits that appellants had deliberately cut the sound fabrics to required sizes for the purpose of marketing them at higher prices as bl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion being less than 5% of the total product. This aspect of the matter has not been controverted and hence we have to hold that appellants had cut the damaged fents to uniform sizes. Therefore, the only activity carried out by them was to cut the fents already arisen qualifying as fents into the smaller fents. This activity of trimming the fents to required sizes would, in our opinion, not disqualify the material as remained to be fents only. Hence benefit of notification cannot be denied on this ground. The Addl. Collector has taken a view that as they have sold at higher prices, therefore the material should be considered as sound fabrics which is not supported by any evidence. Further in the case of Davangere Cotton Mills (supra), it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
