9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (9) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 24-6-1977 was issued to the appellant alleging that there was short levy of duty of about Rs. 6 crores for the period from 1-3-75 to 30-4-77. The duty demand was on the ground that the duty had not been paid on full quantity of base yarn used in the manufacture of texturised yarn. A Note appended to duty computation chart stated as under : NOTE : While calculating the quantity of base yarn used for the manufacture of textured yarn it has been assumed that a waste of 6.5% accrues while base yarn is converted into textured yarn. 2. After an year on 16-9-1978, a corrigendum was issued to this show cause notice. The corrigendum informed the appellant that the duty amount was about Rs. crore (sic), instead of Rs. 6 crore originally in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 7. The appellant has also made a contention that the demand is not sustainable since it has been made without any factual basis. It is being emphasized that the demand is based on a mere assumption entirely unsupported by any basis in actual experience in texturising or even in any technical of other literature. It is the appellant s contention that the demand raised on an assumption, cannot be sustained. A further contention of the appellant is that duty demand is hit by limitation inasmuch as the present demand is in terms of corrigendum dated 16-9-78 and in the absence of any evidence of suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty (not even an allegation being made), the demand could not be made beyond the normal period o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... since we find that the appeals can be disposed of upon answering the question whether any duty was payable in regard to waste yarn. 11. Though the corrigendum to the show cause mentioned loss of based yarn in the calculation statement, it would appear from the show cause notice as well as the adjudication order that authorities are treating loss and waste as the same i.e. there was waste of 6.5% of base yarn during texturising. We have already reproduced the relevant findings in the adjudication order and it is clear that the Assistant Collector has treated the case as one of waste of base yarn. If it is a case of waste of base yarn, the case remains squarely covered by our decision in the case of Modipon (supra) inasmuch as during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
