9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri M.H. Patil, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Vimlesh Kumar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : C. Satapathy, Member (T)]. - Heard both sides. It is the contention of the Department that appellants are liable to pay 24% ad valorem duty on the fabrics whereas the appellants are claiming concessional rate of duty under Notification no. 14/2002-C.E. dated 1-3-2002 as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Importance) Act, read with any notification for the time being in force or the additional duty of customs leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as the case may be, has been paid." In both the conditions the words used are "on which the appropriate duty of excise leviable .......... read with any notification for the time being in force........ has been paid." In the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the composite Textile Mills even though they are exempted from payment of duty under Notification No. 22/96-C.E. in respect of captively consumed yarn and base fabric. The circular clarifies that textile fibres, raw material for composite mills, are brought from the market and hence have to be deemed to be duty paid in view of the Explanations to the said Notification no. 14/2002. We find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate of duty in the case of the appellants, whereas the concessional rate under Notification No. 14/2002-C.E. has been allowed in respect of other units similarly situated. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order with consequential relief to the appellants. The operative part of the order was pronounced in the Court on the date of hearing on 29-4-2005. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
