9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quivalent amount of penalty against the appellant, M/s. Hanil Era Textiles Ltd. This demand pertains to the clearances of acrylic yarn, polyester/blended yarn and blended waste in DTA during the period from 1-7-2004 to 7-7-2004 and March, 2005 to August, 2005. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is before us. 2. The learned Consultant submits that the demand consists of two parts, one for an amount of Rs. 2,20,587/- for the period 1-7-2004 to 7-7-2004 and another for an amount of Rs. 65,77,027/- for the period March to August, 2005. As regards the demand for Rs. 2,20,587/-, this demand is on account of levy of Additional Excise Duty (AED) under the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act 1978 and out of this d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acrylic tow and fiber both by way of imports as also domestically. It is, however, their contention that the acrylic yarn cleared into DTA is manufactured from domestically procured acrylic fiber. Similarly, the blended waste also arise out of domestically procured raw materials. The learned Counsel further contends that while computing the duty, there were certain errors committed. The basic Customs duty adopted for the calculation is 20% whereas the applicable rate was only 15%. Therefore, according to the appellant if the correct duty rates are taken into account, the duty demand would come down to Rs. 48,28,124/-. It is also his contention that they produced a Chartered Accountant's certificate certifying that the goods cleared into DTA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... though as per the Superintendent's verification report, the appellant did not import any polyester staple fiber during the impugned period, it is not known whether the appellant had any imported stock already available from which the yarn was manufactured. Similarly, the blended yarn cleared by the appellant into DTA does not show what is the blend of the material. The appellant's contention is that blended yarn is of polyester and cotton; however no evidence has been produced by the appellant to show that the yarn cleared was polyester/cotton blend and not polyester-acrylic blend. Therefore, the adjudicating authority was right in denying the benefit of concessional rate of duty on polyester blended yarn under Notification No. 23/2003. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be eligible for the duty concession under Notification No. 23/2003. Further, to claim the benefit under the aforesaid notification, the clearance to DTA has to be in terms of the EXIM policy mentioned therein. All these issues require careful and detailed examination, which has not been done by the adjudicating authority while passing the impugned order. The composition of the blended yarn could have been easily ascertained from the sales invoices and the prices quoted. This is the second round of litigation and during the first round, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority with appropriate directions in this regard. In the absence of a clear finding recorded by the adjudicating authority based on documentary evidences, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
