9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the findings of the original authority that the appellants had received the goods involved under Modvatable invoices and removed the goods without payment of duty and without subjecting them to any process in violation of Rule 3(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. 2. Appearing on behalf of the appellant, ld. Counsel reiterated the arguments contained in the appeal memorandum against the impugned order. He submitted that, in their reply to the show cause notice, they had submitted before the original authority that the entire goods involved were subjected to various processes (winding/repacking) in their factory and cleared to M/s. Loyal Textile Mills Ltd., Kovilpatti against CT 1 for export under Notification No. 43/2001, dated 26-6-01 as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oyal Textiles Mills Ltd. The yarn involved had been cleared in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Notification No. 43/01 (supra). It was submitted that in Orissa Synthetics Ltd. [1994 (69) E.L.T. 585 (Trib)] the Tribunal had held that input credit was admissible for manufacture of intermediate product which were cleared to another factory under bond under Rule 191B/191BB of the Central Excise Rules for export production. Ld. Counsel for the appellant prayed the instant case may be remanded to the original authority with a direction to examine whether cotton yarn involved had been cleared in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Notification No. 43/01, and whether the goods had been converted into fabrics and exported by Lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty under the provisions of Section 11AC. 5. I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions made by both sides. From the records, it appears that the appellant s claim that the impugned goods, cotton yarn, had been cleared to another unit for conversion into fabrics for further export, following the relevant procedure was not considered by the lower authorities. It is seen from the SCN that the goods had been cleared to Loyal Textile Mills Ltd. against CT 1 certificate. The original authority had noted the claim of the appellant that the goods cleared had been ultimately exported after conversion into fabrics. The original authority had considered the various case law cited in their defence in view of the above c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
