9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri K.I. Vyas, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President]. All the respondents in the above appeals are traders having shops, who purchase grey fabrics and get them processed by processors and then sell them from their premises. Processed fabrics were seized from each of the respondents on the ground that they had received the goods back from proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndents are not the manufacturers as they are only suppliers of grey fabrics and the processor is the manufacturer in the light of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Ujjagar Prints v. UOI [Narne Tulaman Manufacturers], 1988 (38) E.L.T. 566 (S.C.) = (1989 (20) ECR 129 (S.C.). He, therefore, set aside the confiscation and duty demand and penalty, hence, these appeals by the revenue. 2. We have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adilal Embroidery Unit v. CCE, Mumbai-II [2001 (131) E.L.T. 193 (Tri-Mumbai)], wherein the Tribunal has held that Notification No. 27/92 is relevant only for application or otherwise of Rule 174 and has nothing to do with the payment of duty, and the decision in the case of CCE, Surat v. Kalpana Silk Mills [2001 (134) E.L.T. 373 (Tri.-Mumbai)], holding that grey fabrics supplier (merchant manufact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve dealt with the goods (processed fabrics) with the knowledge that such goods were liable to confiscation for the reason that they had been cleared by the processors without payment of duty. We, therefore, hold that the respondents herein are liable to penalty and restore the adjudication orders in so far as they relate to imposition of penalty. 4. In the result, we sustain the Commissioner (Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
