9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (12) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yarn spun by them, being unscoured/containing lot of greasy materials, was sent by them on the direction of the suppliers of wool, to other jobbers for getting the spun yarn scoured; that such scoured yarn on receipt from the jobbers, was supplied by the Appellants to the owners of wool. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that they had spun yarn weighing 2919 Kg. before 28-2-1994 the day on which the excise duty was imposed on woollen yarn; that the said yarn was sent to jobbers for scouring on 1st and 2nd March, 1994 and the duty has been demanded from them; that unscoured woollen yarn is not marketable and as such was not liable to duty; that the findings of the lower authority that as the woollen yarn cleared was packed in Boras a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and which are marketable. It is not in dispute that the Appellants manufactured the yarn out of the wool supplied by the traders; that the Woollen Yarn so manufactured was removed to other premises for the purpose of scouring which clearly shows that the product can ordinary come to the market and is brought for sale. The onus of proving the marketability can be shifted from the Revenue to the Appellants once the Department discharges the burden. The Adjudicating Authority has given his findings that the goods in question were cleared by the Appellants to other premises by packing in Boras (bags). The burden has been shifted to the Appellants to prove that the goods are not marketable which has not been discharged by them. We also do not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as a case where the goods were excisable goods prior to March 1, 1987, though by virtue of an exemption notification, the rate of duty was nil. This does not mean that they were not excisable goods. They were excisable goods. Nil rate of duty is also a rate of duty. With effect from March 1, 1987, the said goods became excisable to duty at the rate of fifteen per cent ad valorem. It is in the above circumstances that the Court held, on the basis of Section 3 and Rule 9A, that though the goods were produced or manufactured prior to March 1, 1987, still they attracted duty at the rate prevailing on the date of their removal, i.e. fifteen per cent. 5. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the duty is payable by the Appellants on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
