9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (6) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st the same to the Central Excise Authorities in Bangalore and to the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, regarding the proposal of classification of the Embroidery Thread being manufactured by them as being Sewing Thread and pursuant to that, fresh samples were drawn and were sent to tests to the Chief Chemist of the Central Revenue Control Laboratory, New Delhi. After a lapse of 14-15 months, another show cause notice dated 9-12-1996, was issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore alleging that the appellant was engaged in the manufacture of Sewing Thread declared by them as Embroidery Thread in the clearance document. He proposed this product to be fall under appropriate Heading 54.04.00 and to be classif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e opinion given by the Chief Chemist that the samples are more akin to Sewing Thread rather than Yarn the correct classification of the thread manufactured by the assessee is only under Chapter Heading No. 5401.20 and not under 5403.41 as viscose rayon yarn . We find from the decision of the ld. Commissioner to correctly classify the goods manufactured, during the period of the demand in the case, under Heading 5401.20 is not correct in law and procedure, as no such Heading as 5401.20 was in existence during that period nor was the notice given in classification under Heading 5401.20. The notice as recorded by the ld. Commissioner in his order was proposing the classification of the product Viscose/Rayon (Art silk) Sewing Thread to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld in M/s. Pawan Biscuits (P) Ltd. reported in 2000 (120) E.L.T. 24 (S.C.) following the Ujaggar Prints Others decision. We are aware that in the case of Sree Agencies, 1977 (1) E.L.T. (J 168), the Hon ble Supreme Court has held, in the facts of that case, a yarn trader to be the manufacturer of the goods; the Commissioner s finding has not considered these two crucial decisions of the SC. Therefore, the matter is required to be remanded back to the Commissioner to decide the question as to who is the manufacturer in the facts of this case afresh. (c) In view of the settled position of the law that penalty under Section 11AC cannot be imposed for the period earlier to enactment of that section. We find no merits in the present appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
