9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (5) TMI 520X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re engaged inter alia in dyeing, bleaching and printing of man made fabrics falling under Item 22 of the erstwhile Tariff. Apart from dyeing and bleaching of fabrics, appellants were also engaged in calendering of fabrics, which are known as top dyed fabrics or plain grey fabrics . They had filed their classification lists in respect of calendering of fabrics and claimed exemption under Notification No. 297/79. The said notification exempted fabrics falling under T.I. 22 from Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 provided the process mentioned in the Table under notification alone are carried out and no other process is carried out in the same premises where the processes mentioned in the Table to the notifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d they were to be accounted for in the R.G. 1 Register only the next day. Further, the appellants also explained that the goods, which had been received on or after 27-6-1984, were to be subjected to other processes apart from calendering. Regarding the recovery of duty for the period 5-6-1982 to 6-7-1984, appellants explained that it was not proper to place reliance only on four of their customers when the appellants were engaged in calendering of fabrics for over one hundred merchants. If at all, the duty recovery would be only in relation to the supplies made by the said four merchants and not in relation to other suppliers. Certain inconsistencies in the statements given by the said suppliers was also pointed out in their reply. Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the said book and not to the entire fabrics received by the appellants. Ld. Counsel also submitted that the appellants had not been given access to the said book even at the time of adjudication. In this connection, ld. Counsel referred to the letter dated 6-4-1985 written by the appellants seeking the Collector s permission for inspection of the said book. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the cross examination of the four customers whose statements are relied upon by Department showed that they had made only general statements and no inference could be made to conclude that the entire fabrics processed by the appellants during the period were received for purposes of calendering and that the appellants had undertaken processes othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g machine as claimed by the appellants. 6. Ld. JDR further contended that it was necessary to examine whether the grey manmade fabrics would be sent piecemeal by merchants only for purposes of calendering at a payment of Re. 1/- per meter as processing charges. If calendering of unprocessed fabrics was the only process engaged in by the appellants should have received fabrics other than top dyed shirtings and suitings for calendering. The Collector had found that the appellants had received no such fabrics for calendering. Further, statements given by the four merchants confirmed that they were supplying fabrics to the appellants for other processes like bleaching, stentering etc. and not for calendering alone. There was also evidence by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ck of 14 bundles of calendered fabrics accounted for as manufactured on 5-7-1984, they could not have been processed as per entries in the R.G. 1 account. Whereas at the close of 6-7-1984, appellants had shown 628.35 mtrs. of calendered fabrics, on 8-7-1984, a quantity of 10,307.70 mtrs. had been accounted as calendered fabrics in the R.G. 1 Register. The Collector had therefore rightly dismissed the appellants claim that such quantity of fabrics had undergone processes like bleaching, dyeing, stentering and calendering within the span of one day when the entire plant and machinery had been flooded with water as claimed by the appellants themselves. 7. We have given due consideration to the submissions made and have perused the records. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld that the appellants were entitled to the concession under Notification No. 297/79. It is the appellants contention that the said order having become final, the matter could not have been re-opened and no demand could have been made with retrospective effect invoking the extended period of limitation as has been done in the present case. We find that this argument has some force. The appellants have further urged that the departmental officers had also conducted transit checks and verified the goods during the said period. No adverse comments had been give by the Officers for such clearances made during the period. They have also urged that the Classification Lists submitted by the appellants showing the description of the goods having ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
