9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 747X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cture of nylon crimped yarn and polyester crimped yarn. The period of dispute is August 2000 to July 2002. Prior to March 2000, excise duty on the above two types of yarn was on ad valorem basis. With effect from 1.3.2000, the specific duty was prescribed for polyester texturised yarn and the ad valorem duty continued for the nylon crimped yarn. However, the appellants continued to pay the duty on the texturised nylon yarn on the specific rate basis. Based on intelligence, the case was investigated by the officers of the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence. During the scrutiny of the records, it was found that the appellants have filed a classification declaration bearing No.1/2000-01 w.e.f. 17.8.2000 wherein the nylon crimpe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lon crimped yarn on payment of excise duty as against duty payable on ad valorem basis. He further contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) has denied the availment of modvat/cenvat credit based on the irrelevant findings that the appellants have knowingly forgone their rights to avail the credit due to withdrawal of the claim by their letter dated 11.6.2001. He submitted that since, in October 2001, they had again filed a declaration requesting for availing the credit, they are eligible to avail the credit. Therefore, the denial of credit is unjust and baseless. He also stated that inclusion of job work charges of Rs.5/- towards the exempted process of twisting is not correct and, therefore, there is no involvement of any short payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he correct rate of duty was applied by the appellants only from 1.10.2001. This only shows that they were aware of the correct rate of duty applicable on their products. Since the duty on the nylon crimped yarn was leviable at the ad valorem rate of duty, duty has correctly been demanded in the show cause notice and since they have contravened the provisions of the Central Excise Rules with deliberate intent to pay less duty though they were knowing that they were liable to pay duty at the ad valorem rate, the invocation of extended period is rightly upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). As regards the contention of the appellants that duty is not required to be paid on Rs.5/- as twisting charges, it is found from the records that the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
