9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Artificial Fur Lining) being manufactured by the appellant is thus correctly classifiable under heading 6001.12 as unprocessed. Impugned order is set aside. Since the issue was broadly covered by a number of decisions, pre-deposit of duty was dispensed and with the consent of both the parties, the appeal itself was heard. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of Knitted Fabric of man-made Textile material (Artificial Fur Lining) classifiable under Chapter Heading 6001.12. 3. On scrutiny of the records, Central Excise Officers observed that the assessee had declared Knitted Pile Fabrics/Fur Fabrics under Chapter sub-heading 6001.12 as dutiable and had paid Central Excise Duty on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in 1989 (40) E.L.T. 218 and the Tribunal decision in the case of Maharashtra Fur Fabrics reported in 1994 (71) E.L.T. 857 and Versatile Enterprises reported in 2001 (130) E.L.T. 770 (T) = 2000 (91) ECR 723 and stated that in view of the above, the process carried out by them did not make the knitted long pile fabric as processed and they were entitled to exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 6/2000-C.E., dt. 1-3-2000. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the assessee as indicated above. 5. Arguing the case for Revenue Shri Atul Dikshit, ld. DR submits that Central Board of Excise and Customs in their Circular No. 14/Knitted fabrics/89/CX. 1, dt. 16-10-1989 while clarifying the process of manufacture observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not the same as the present Notification No. 6/2000. 7. Ld. DR submits that a lot of reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mafatlal Fine Spinning Mfg. Co. Ltd. He submits that reliance has been placed on the observations of the Apex Court in this case in paras 10 and 12. He submits that para 11 has been omitted altogether. Ld. DR submits that in the first sentence in Para 11 of the Apex Court judgment it has been observed These matters depend on particularities of the facts of each case and are to be decided on a case by case basis Ld. DR submits that the facts of the present case are different and therefore, all the decisions cited by the ld. Commissioner for coming to the conclusion are ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellants are integral processes for the manufacture of knitted fabrics. Fabric continued to be unprocessed (grey) after such processes. 9. Ld. Sr. Counsel also drew our attention to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Dhanlakshmi B Mills Ltd. reported in 1999 (112) E.L.T. 149 and stated that in this case this Tribunal held that fabrics remain unprocessed after shearing. Ld. Sr. Counsel therefore, submitted that in view of the above decisions including that of the Apex Court the fabrics manufactured by them remained unprocessed even after shearing, cropping or back coating and therefore, were eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 6/2000 and prayed that the impugned order may be upheld. 10. We have heard the rival submis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
