9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - As per facts on record, the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of spun yarn falling under Chapters 52, 54 and 55 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were paying duty on the said yarn at spindle stage. Thereafter, various processes like bleaching, dyeing or mercerising etc. were being undertaken by them in r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resent appeal. 3. We have hard Shri Prakash Shah, learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri Vimlesh Kumar, learned SDR for the Revenue. 4. The appellant's contention is that the activity of dyeing was inserted as manufacturing process for the first time by way of Chapter Notes w.e.f. 16-3-1995 and prior to the said date, it cannot be held that dyeing amounted to manufacturing process ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d have wrongly confirmed duty on the dyed yarn for the second time. After hearing the learned DR, we find that by addition of Chapter Note 2 to Chapter 52, process of dyeing was held as amounting to manufacture. Accordingly, for the period after 16-3-1995, the duty demand confirmed in respect of dyed yarn has to be upheld. However, the duty already paid by the appellant at the spindle stage on und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch is inclusive of dying. As such viewed from any angle, it was dyed yarn which was required to discharge its duty liability. However, the duty already paid by the appellant on undyed yarn is required to be adjusted against the quantum of duty required to be paid on the dyed yarn. 7. In view of our observations, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
