9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (5) TMI 245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri K.D. Tayal, S.D.R., for the Respondent. ORDER In this matter the Appellant who produces yarn falling under Tariff Item 18E was held to have cleared 10,015 kgs. of yarn between the period 6-11-1978 and 31-1-1979 without payment of excise duty (and not excess duty as mentioned in the order) at he rate of ₹ 24 per kg. and other levies at appropriate rates. The Assistant Collector furth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 50% prolypropylene staple fibre) was exempted, gave strength to the finding of the Assistant Collector. The Appellate Collector observed that "This shows that the earlier Notification No. 332/77 applied only to polypropylene yarn manufactured out of polypropylene staple fibre only. Had that not been the intention, there would have been no need to issue the subsequent notification." 2. Befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... polypropylene spun yarn. 3. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. We have examined the classification lists filed by the Appellant and observe that these are verified by the Inspector and Superintendent of Central Excise and were approved by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. From such a perusal we also notice that the composition of yarn was clearly mentioned in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant. Therefore, we agree with the submission of the Appellant that it is only the normal time limit that applies and not the extended time limit provided in the proviso to Rule 10 C.E. Rules. 5. In the circumstances, we hold that the demand was time-barred. As a result, the appeal is allowed on this ground. In view of this, we do not consider it necessary to examine issues (ii) and (iii). X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
