9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , CA, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Vice President]. Heard both sides. 2. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal whereby the benefit of Notification No. 5/99 6/2000-C.E. was allowed to the appellant in respect of the goods which were manufactured out of inputs regarding which no proof regarding payment of appropriate duty has been produced. 3. The respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty on inputs. The contention of the revenue is that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has wrongly held that it is presumed that all the goods available in the open market are duty paid. The contention is that it is not the benefit of deemed credit or where such presumption is applicable. The Revenue relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Spg. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .L.T. (J525) (Del.) - Sulekh Ram and Sons v. UOI and Ors. 1996 (84) E.L.T. 555 (T) - Hirdhan Texturising Industries v. CCE C, Baroda. 6. We find that in this case the respondent as manufacturer wants to avail the benefit of Notification No. 5/99 and 6/2000-C.E. As per the term and conditions of the notification if the yarn has suffered appropriate duty and used in the processing and no cred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iven to the exempted item to enlarge the scope of exemption granted by the notification. As the conditions of the notification is that the yarn has to suffer the appropriate duty to avail the benefit of the notification and appellant failed to produce any evidence regarding payment of appropriate duty on the yarn. Therefore, in view of the above decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
