2008 (12) TMI 495

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : M. Veeraiyan, Member (T) (for the Bench)]. This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 39(RM)/CE/JPR-II/2004, dated 20-10-04. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The appellant procured duty paid POY from the market and took credit of the duty paid and texturised the same. The original authority held that the appellant is not an indep .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... efore, the demand should not be upheld. 5. Learned DR submits that the definition of independent texturisor is clearly incorporated in Rule 57AB(2)(c) itself and there is no scope for interpreting the said Rule with the aid of Notification No. 6/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000. In this context, he relied on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Trichy v. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o taken and utilised. Therefore, there is clearly a demand of duty from the appellant. While contesting the demand of duty, the appellant is definitely entitled to raise issues which have a bearing on the proposed demand; the defence can be that goods are not subjected to duty at all or that they are eligible for benefit of some exemption notification. Such defence to seek setting aside the demand .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X