Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1996 (12) TMI 264

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a, Manager (Excise) claimed that these goods were in process material and had not reached the RG-1 stage. Further search revealed final packing slips accounting for 1750 cases of such yarn for which the management was not able to produce any co-relating documents of clearance. The officer seized the yarn of denierage of 225/15 and 300/15 as also the used final packing slips. A study of the clearance record showed that the assessee had cleared on payment of duty on earlier occasion the yarn of the very description as of the seized goods. The officer calculated that the yarn cleared under the used packing slips was valued at Rs. 45,93,258.70 and that duty amounting to Rs. 26,79,400.91 leviable thereon had not been paid. After further investig .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Ltd. was recognised as M/s. L.M.L. Ltd. (S.S. Synthetics dividend). He also referred to various sale deeds and transferring deeds placed on record in support of his claim. He referred to department on Company Affairs Order F.No. 6/115/85-5 SII, dated 16-6-1986 which shows that M/s. S.S. Synthetics Ltd. were division of M/s. L.M.L. which fact had come in the Department s letter even number dated 30-6-1986 also. On perusal of the cited documents we accept the contention of Shri Santhanam that L.M.L. have locus standi as appellants in this case. 4. Shri Santhanam also submitted that his application for permission to raise additional grounds of appeal under Rule 10 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, be entertained. The additional grounds are t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at constitutes manufacture resulting in production of excisable goods. In order to rule upon the excisability of a particular product the attendant circumstances have to be examined. While the various judgments cited by Shri Santhanam may provide the guidelines, in each case the facts command more weightage than the law derived from earlier judgments. 6. The issue of excisability and dutiability of mother yarn or multi-filament yarn has already been decided in the appellants own case [1991 (51) E.L.T. 434 (Tribunal)] by the Tribunal. In the judgment it has been held that mother yarn is different commodity from split yarn or monofilament yarn and is excisable. The various arguments advanced by Shri Santhanam are, therefore, of no avail. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... estinely arises out of the seizure of final packing slips which were seized from the splitting Section of the assessees factory. The show cause notice mentions that these slips were secreted so as to avoid detection. It is the statement of Shri Santhanam that the packing slips were put on cases containing multi-filament yarn sent to the splitting Section, in witness of which, relevant entries have been made in the log-book. It was further claimed that the single yarn produced from these goods was duly entered in the RG-1 Register and cleared. It was claimed that the raw-material registers would show that there was no clandestine production of any yarn by them. It was claimed that the slips had served their purposes and, therefore, had been .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... astination. The details as appearing on the slips are such as could have been shown for the mother yarn also. There was no warrant for the Collector to opine that so many details were not necessary or warranted for internal movements of the goods. We find that neither the evidence disclosed in the show cause notice nor the discusion of the Collector establish the clandestine removal of any yarn from the assessee s factory. Therefore, the demand based on this tenuous evidence cannot sustain. 11. Even, otherwise, the contention of Shri Santhanam that show cause notice dated 6-2-1986 invoking the longer period having been signed by the Superintendent is not maintainable after the amendment of Section 11A w.e.f. 27-12-1985 has also merit. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates