9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant. None, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.V. Sairam, Member (T)]. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Ludhiana, dated 23-12-2004. In the impugned order, the Commissioner, while reiterating the ratio of decision of the Hon ble High Court of Jammu Kashmir vide Writ Petition No. 114 of 1995 had discharged the show cause notices u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t pay a farthing towards the differential duty on the value as determined at the time of removal of goods from their factory premises. It was observed that in these notices that the noticee was required to discharge its duty liability in respect of yarn manufactured by him only at the time of removal of goods on the assessable value of the goods so determined in terms of Section 4 of the Act at th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt dated 18-5-1995, the exemption enjoyed by the respondent/assessee was denied. The addition of a proviso here made the respondent/assessee ineligible for exemption under Notification dated 16-3-1995 as the clearances of yarn from a factory having facilities (including plant and equipment) for producing single yarn were not extended with the said exemption. A Circular issued by the Board on 25- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ground that the duty was not to be paid at single yarn stage. However, it was clarified that as the decision of the Hon ble High Court had gone in favour of the Respondent as they were made eligible for exemption prior to 18-5-1995, what was challenged now was only in respect of those show cause notices which were issued covering the period subsequent to 18-5-1995. 5. We find that out of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plant equipment) for producing single yarn. 6. It was, therefore, not the case of the Revenue that the exemption was swept away by virtue of the said proviso. In view of this, no useful purpose would be served by a remand as is being suggested by the Learned Departmental Representative. The appeal filed by the Revenue is, therefore, dismissed. (Dictated pronounced in the open Court on 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
