9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e findings recorded by Tribunal in the case of Prem Industries [2009 (5) TMI 193 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] and Auro Textile [2009 (11) TMI 447 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] The issue regarding benefit of Notification No. 14/2002 as regards condition “on which duty hads been paid” needs to be settled by Larger Bench - Simplex Mills Co. Ltd. and Morarjee Gokuldas Spg. & Wvg. Co. Ltd [2005 (5) TMI 170 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] - the benefit of Notification No. 14/2002 was extended to the assessee - Following Jayaswals Neco Ltd. v. CCE, Nagpur [2006 (1) TMI 133 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Tribunal directed the Registry to place the order before Hon’ble President to consider constituting a Larger Bench and to answer reference as to whether the judgment and order deli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i.-Del.), in an appeal filed by the Revenue has held categorically that any person availing the benefit of Explanation II of the notification and supplying the goods should be considered as deemed to have been duty paid and benefit of Notification No. 14/2002-C.E. should not be denied. It is his submission that the said order of the Tribunal was dictated without any representation from the respondent. It is his submission that subsequently, in other cases like Auro Textile v. CCE, Chandigarh - 2010 (253) E.L.T. 35 (Tri.-Del.), M.M. Dyeing & Finishing Mills (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Ludhiana - 2010 (258) E.L.T. 306 (Tri.-Del.), Vohra Dyeing v. CCE, Ludhiana - 2010 (259) E.L.T. 605 (Tri.-Del.), the very same Bench has held that the words "on which dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also relied upon the decision in the case of Paras Fab International v. CCE, Jaipur - 2009 (239) E.L.T. 176 (Tri.-Del.). 6. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. At the outset, we would like to indicate that the judgments of this Tribunal in the case of Prem Industries was an appeal against the order of Commissioner(Appeals) which allowed the benefit of Notification No. 14/2002-C.E. to the assessee under Sr. No. 14 of the notification, which has identical provision which we are required to look into. We find that while dismissing appeal filed by the Revenue, the Bench has in paragraph 6 recorded as under : "6. We have carefully considered the submissions of the ld. DR. and have perused t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the appellants factory from yarn stage in a continuous process. The dispute is only in respect of the quantity of the processed, knitted fabrics which were manufactured out of, grey/unprocessed fabric purchased from the market, which according to the Revenue cannot be treated as duty paid fabrics, as Sl. No. 14 of the same exemption Notification also exempts knitted unprocessed fabrics from the whole of the duty subject to certain conditions specified therein. We do not agree with this contention of the Revenue as Explanation II to the Notification clearly states that for the purpose of the conditions specified in this Notification, the textile yarn, fibre or fabrics shall be deemed to have been paid duty even without production of docu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was decided in the absence of any assistance on behalf of the assessee and the question which are sought to be raised in the matters in hand were never raised therein. This is apparent from a plain reading of the order passed therein. It was clearly observed therein that there was no dispute about availability of concessional rate of duty under a notification in question to the processed knitted fabric made in the appellant's factory from yarn stage in a continuous process. In that set of facts, the order came to be passed in Prem Industries case which cannot apply to the cases in hand. Being so, the said decision is of no help to the assessees in the matters in hand." 8. It can be seen from the above reproduced portion of Tribunal's ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the Bench of the same strength should follow the decision of the Bench of the same strength and if they are of view that said order cannot be followed, they should place the matter to the Chief for consideration to referring to Larger Bench. Respectfully following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jayaswals Neco Ltd, we direct the Registry to place this order along with the copies of orders cited in this judgment before Hon'ble President to consider constituting a Larger Bench and to answer reference as to whether the judgment and order delivered by Bench in the case of Prem Industries is correct or judgment delivered by the Bench in the case of Auro Textile is correct as regards the benefit of Notification No. 14/2002. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
