9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eligible to exemption under Sr.No.16 of the said notification when processed. Reference was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. - appellant claimed benefit for the finished goods under Sr.No.16, We find that in all the cases, the assessees received unprocessed textile fabrics for the processing, so, the appeals before us are covered by the decision of the larger bench of the Tribunal in the case of Arvind Products Ltd. (supra). - Impugned order is not sustainable - Decided in favour of Revenue. - Appeal No.E/2520/2006-EX(DB) - Final Order No.50985/2015 - Dated:- 22-1-2015 - MR. P.K. DAS, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. P.S. PRUTHI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Shri V.P. Batra, Authorised Representative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the said notification provides for the purpose of condition specified in the said notification, textile yarn or fabrics shall be deemed to have duty paid even without production of documents evidencing payment of duty thereon. The larger bench of the Tribunal in the case of Arvind Products Ltd. vs.CCE ST, Ahmedabad-2014 (310) 515 (Tri.-Del.) in the context of Explanation-II of notification No.14/2002-Ce grey fabrics purchased from the market may be deemed to be duty paid eligible to exemption under Sr.No.16 of the said notification when processed. Reference was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Relevant portion of the said decision is produced below: 8.7 In the case of GOI v. Indian Tobacco Association [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s (supra), Simplex Mills Co. Limited v. CCE (supra) and Morarjee Gokuldas Spg. Wvg. Co. Limited v. CCE (supra) were correct interpretation of exemption Notification No. 14/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2002, Accordingly, benefit of Sr. No. 12 of Notification No. 14/2002-C.E., will be admissible to the appellants by considering the fabric received for processing as deemed duty paid as per Explanation-II of Notification No. 14/2002-C.E. Any other interpretation will make this explanation redundant. Further such a deemed fiction was not existing before the Hon ble Supreme Court while delivering judgment in the case of CCE v. Dhiren Chemicals Limited (supra). 6. Learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue submits that in the present case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
