9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (8) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se leviable thereon. The notification contained an Explanation which specified the eligible types of waste yarn in relation to two categories of yarn - (1) yarn containing more than 40% of cotton and (2) yarn containing 40% or more by the weight of wool. Under the first category of yarn, one of the eligible types of waste yarn specified was yarn not exceeding three metres in length, in loom beam ends commonly known as `lap waste or Antri . It is not in dispute in the present appeal that the yarn manufactured by the appellants did not fall in the first category of yarn specified in the Explanation since their yarn contained less than 40% of cotton. The appellants stated during the hearing before us today that their claim for refund of duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund claim contained no allegation of their claim being time-barred. 3. The Department s Representative stated that according to the provisions of Rule 9A, central excise duty was payable at the rate in force at the time of removal of the goods (1979 E.L.T. 258 and 1980 E.L.T. 709), that clearance of the goods for captive use was deemed as removal of the goods and that any waste arising after removal of the goods on payment of duty under the normal procedure was not entitled to refund under the notification. He added that the notification was not redundant in so far as lap waste is concerned because textile mills working under the compounded levy scheme and paying yarn duty on the basis of the area of the fabrics along with the fabric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which waste arising in the course of consumption of duty paid yarn is entitled to refund of duty. Notification No. 172/72-C.E. could, in the case of the appellants, apply only if they presented waste yarn (hard waste) for assessment and removal in terms of Rules 9 and 9A. But such is not the case here. What they presented for assessment and removal was goods yarn in the form of warp beams. Lap waste arising thereafter in their factory is not entitled to refund under the notification. In the case of the appellants, waste yarn arising in the course of spinning, reeling and warping etc. processes, i.e., pre-assessment processes, was entitled to exemption but not the waste arising in the weaving process after the assessment. The argument of dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
