9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant was carrying out the manufacture of man made fabrics, which was agitated by the appellants throughout the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority of the appellate authority. Confirmation of demands, mentioned in Para 5(iii) by the lower authorities does not survive. - Decided in favor of assessee. Benefit of Notfn No. 253/82. - Held that:- Lower authorities have confirmed demands of 5,36,670/90 as indicated in Para 5(iv) above on the ground that benefit of ‘NIL’ rate of duty under Notfn No. 253/82 has been wrongly availed as these fabrics were presumably have been subjected to dutiable processes and not exempted processes. It has been rightly contested by the main appellant that addresses of those buyers, who got the fabrics after undertaking exempted processes, were exiting in the records of the main appellant. - that demands cannot be confirmed against a manufacturer simply on the basis of few confessional statements and some note books/private records maintained by the workers/employees of a manufacturer. - Demand set aside - Decided in favor of assessee. Demand on the basis of a sample registrar found in the premises of M/s Jindal Synthetics - Held that:- It is s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he lot register maintained by the main appellant and not properly showing the same in the records was only a procedural lapse on appellant's part without any intention to evade payment of Central Excise duty . iii) That Para 5.2 of the Show Cause Notice demanding a duty of Rs 2,85,691/-, is based on a Rotary Programme book maintained by the workers of processed man made fabrics (MMF). It was argued by the Learned Advocate that main appellant only processes cotton fabric and has not printed any man-made fabrics on which this duty is demanded. It was his case that for printing cotton fabrics pigment colours are required and printing MMF disperse dyes/colours are required. That main appellant has no machinery to process MMF using disperse dyes/colours and has also not purchased any disperse dyes/colour. iv) That no trace of MMF was found in the factory premises of the main appellant on the date of stock taking. v) That against some of the lots in the private records the words 'J' was mentioned which actually meant that such lots were pertaining to M/s Jindal Synthetics and not to the main appellant. vi) That demand of Rs 2,13,697/-, (1,76,230 L Mtrs), as per Annexure I to the Show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t could be printed for more than once to get the desired print. Hence it was his case that roller printing register will never show actual quantity of cotton fabrics printed on the rotary printing machine. x) That duty demand of Rs 93,942/- on 1,58,733 L Mtrs of fabrics, is based on 'sample register' withdrawn from the factory premises of M/s Jindal Synthetics. That against several entries word 'J' is mentioned before lot number which indicates that these fabrics were processed at the premises of M/s Jindal Synthetics. It was his case that all the lots shown to have been processed in Sample Register can not be considered to be the fabrics manufactured by the main appellant. xi) That an amount of Rs 2,90,734.40 as per Annexure VII to the Show Cause Notice, has been confirmed on the grounds that benefit of Notfn. No 253/82 is not applicable. The reasoning given by the Revenue is that fabrics of 40 width could be printed on hand printing tables of the main appellant. That Revenue's argument is that the fabrics, for which benefit of Notfn No. 253/82 was claimed, were more than 40, therefore, the same were machine printed by the main appellant. It is the case of appellant that they ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2/3/1998, nearly 4= years after the visit by the officers on 27/7/93. That both the OIO and OIA passed by the lower authorities are well reasoned and appeals filed by the appellants should be rejected. 5. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue raised by the Revenue in these proceedings is that main appellant has indulged in clandestine manufacture and clearance of cotton/manmade fabrics resulting into following demands : (i) Duty demand of Rs 61,220/- with respect to shortage found on the date of visit [Para 3(i) above] (ii) Duty demand of Rs 4334.90 on 7740 L Mtrs of cotton fabrics found and seized in second unit of the appellant [Para 3(ii) above] (iii) Duty demand on processing of man made fabrics (MMF) : Rs 2,85,691.00 Para 3(iii) above Rs 2,13,697.00 Para 3(vi) above Rs 37,644.25 Para 3(ix) above (iv) Duty demand by denying the benefit of Notfn No. 253/82. Rs 28,042.00 Para 3(vii) above Rs 1,40,364.00 Para 3(viii) above Rs 75,240.50 Para 3(ix) above Rs 2,90,734.40 Para 3(xi) above Rs 2,290.00 Para 3(xii) above (v) Duty demand of Rs 93,942/- on 1,58,733 L Mtrs of fabrics based on a sample register withdrawn from the factory premises of M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oncerned, it has been argued that main appellant does not have the facility for manufacturing of man made fabrics (MMF). It is observed from Para 1 of the OIO passed by the Adjudicating Authority that main appellant is engaged in the processing of cotton fabrics but investigation, inter-alia, alleges that MMF of Chapter 54/55 of Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 was also manufactured by the appellant. There was no stock of either grey or finished man made fabric found in the factory premises of the main appellant nor any such MMF was seized elsewhere. No cash was seized in these proceedings indicating purchase/sale of grey/finished man made fabrics allegedly manufactured and cleared by the main appellant. There is no indication of any additional purchase of raw materials required for processing of the man made fabrics by the main appellant. Under the circumstances simply on the basis of few statements and private records of the appellants, it cannot be held that the main appellant was carrying out the manufacture of man made fabrics, which was agitated by the appellants throughout the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority of the appellate authority. Confirmation of demands, me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
