9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 653X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equal amount was also imposed on the appellants. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 16-2-99, the unit of the appellants was visited by the Revenue Officers and it was found that there were 65 machines used in the manufacture of chenille yarn. The chenille yarn was liable to excise duty and the appellants are clearing chenille yarn without payment of duty. On 17-2-99, the statement of Shri Rajeev Kumar, proprietor of the firm was recorded who admitted the fact regarding manufacture of chenille yarn and also admitted that they were manufacturing chenille yarn for the last 5-6 years and clearing the same without payment of duty. The Revenue Officers also made enquiry from the customers which also shows that the appellants were clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espect, the appellants made insurance claim and the survey report of the insurance company only shows that the presence of doubling machines. The contention of the appellants is that if they were manufacturing chenille yarn during that period, there must be some mention of the machines used for the manufacture of such yarn in the survey report of the insurance company. 5. The contention of the appellants is also that the demand quantified on the basis of their total clearance of yarn. The appellants produced the evidence on record to show that they were also trading in cotton yarn which is not liable to excise duty. Therefore, the quantification of demand is only on the basis of presumption that all the clearances made by the appellants a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e find no infirmity in the impugned order where the Commissioner held that the plea that the machines for manufacture of chenille yarn were purchased in the month of January, 1999 is only afterthought. 9. Regarding quantification, we find that the appellants produced the evidence on record and the Revenue also made some enquiries from their customers to show that they were also trading in the cotton yarn which is not dutiable. The demand was quantified taking into consideration all the clearances made by the appellants as chenille yarn which according to our opinion is not sustainable. The Revenue is duty bound to raise the demand in respect of chenille yarn manufactured and cleared by the appellants without payment of duty. As the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
