9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hread falling under sub-heading 5508.10 and 5204.00 respectively of the CETA. Their factory premises was raided on 8-11-95 by the central excise officers of Anti-evasion wing. During checking, unaccounted stock of sewing threads valued at Rs. 10,09,037/- was found and seized. It also revealed that they were receiving cotton/polyester yarn in hanks and after rewinding on tube/reel were clearing the sewing thread without proper central excise registration and without observing the proper procedure. Statement of Pran Nath Minocha, Partner of the appellant firm, was also recorded wherein he admitted these facts. The samples of finished products i.e. sewing thread and raw material were also drawn for chemical examination. On getting the report o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other hand, the learned SDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order while refuting the contention of the learned counsel. 5. We have heard both the sides and gone through the record. 6. To elaborate the first contention that the yarn manufactured by the appellants did not satisfy the requirement of sewing thread, the counsel has placed reliance on Section Note 3 of Section XI which enacts that for the purpose of Heading Nos. 52.04, 54.01, 55.08 of CETA, sewing thread means multifolded or cabled yarn; (a) Put up on supports (for example, reels, tubes) of a weight (including support) not exceeding 1,000 grams; (b) Dressed for use as sewing thread; and (c) With a final Z or S twist. According to the Counsel, all these con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any sufficient ground to disagree with the same, in the light of the discussions made above. 7. The alternative contention of the learned counsel that if the appellants are held to be manufacturers of sewing thread, they were entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 84/95 also cannot be accepted being devoid of any force. The bare perusal of the said notification shows that benefit of the same can be availed only when the sewing thread had been manufactured out of yarn on which appropriate duty of excise had already been paid. It has not been disputed before us that the appellants did not pay any duty on the yarn purchased by them in hanks form, out of which they had manufactured sewing thread. Therefore, no shelter under th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L.T. 491 and Neyveli Lignite Corpn. Ltd. v. CCE - 1992 (58) E.L.T. 76, referred by the Counsel, is not attracted to the facts of the present case and cannot be applied in the face of the Larger Bench decision, in the above referred case. 9. Similarly, the law laid down in CCE, Hyderabad v. Fenoplast (P) Ltd. - 1994 (72) E.L.T. 513 (S.C.), wherein it has been held that the argument of trade understanding being the decisive factor applies only when the words are not defined in the Act, referred by the counsel, is not of any avail to the appellants. As observed above, there is ample material on record to prove that the appellants were manufacturing sewing thread and not any other yarn. 10. In the light of the discussions made above, we do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
