9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 1053X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. ORDER After examining the records and hearing both sides, we note that the appellant has been asked to pay duty of Rs. 7,62,905/- for the period from September to December 2002 in respect of processed pile fabrics. A penalty of equal amount has also been imposed on them under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The above duty was demanded on the ground that the appellant was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , reliance has been placed on Simplex Mills Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai - 2005 (189) E.L.T. 228 (Tri.-Mumbai), wherein a similar issue was considered by this Bench and the benefit of the same notification was allowed to the assessee. The learned counsel has also pointed out that the lower authorities erroneously relied on the Board's Circular No. 667/58/2002-CX., dated 26-9-2002, to deny the benefit o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 2002 on processed fabrics is time-barred. Learned SDR, on the other hand, opposes the present application on the strength of the findings recorded by the adjudicating and first appellate authorities. He also claims support from Paras Fab International v. CCE, Jaipur - 2009 (239) E.L.T. 176 (Tri.-Del.), wherein the benefit of Notification 15/2002-C.E. was denied to the assessee on the ground of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he final product (processed fabrics) which were manufactured out of such grey fabrics. 2. We have found prima facie case for the appellants inasmuch as the case of the appellant is supported by (a) the above Explanation to Notification 14/2002-C.E., (b) the Board's clarification contained in Circular No. 680/71/2002-CX., dated 10-12-2002, (c) the Tribunal's decision in Simplex Mills case and (d) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
