9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cess of conversion of the said goods would amount to manufacture, instead it is specified therein that conversion of the goods from one form to another amounts to manufacture, and evidently, there is no conversion of goods from one form to another in the instant case. Further, it is also not disputed that the appellants have received duty paid grey yarn in cone form and also sold dyed yarn in cone form, which indicates that overall duty payable is only in respect of process of dyeing which has not been undertaken by the appellants. Extended period of limitation - Held that: - There is strength in the contention of the appellants that they had bonafide that they were not doing any manufacturing and hence, not liable to take registration o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.11.2003. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued to the respondents on 3.4.2006 by invoking the extended period of limitation for the period 1.4.2003 to 13.11.2003 on the ground that the respondents are engaged in purchasing of grey yarn from market and were selling the same after getting it dyed manually from outside as such amounts to manufacture, therefore, the respondent is required to pay duty thereon. The matter was adjudicated, but on appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) who gave the benefit of extended period of limitation. Aggrieved with the said order, the Revenue is before me. 3. Heard both sides. 4. In this case, the investigation was conducted on 13.11.2003 wherein the partner Smt. Sudesh Kumari gave the details of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. In this regard, it is observed that it is not in dispute that the appellants were purchasing the yarn in cone form and also selling in the same form and that they were not undertaking the process of dying which was got done from outside. Also, it is fact on record that they were converting the grey yearn procured by them from cone form to hank form for getting the yarn dyed as it was not appropriate to undertake the process of dyeing of yarn in cone form, and the dyed yarn was again convereted to cone form before selling the same. The demand in the instant case has been upheld in reference to chapter notes of chapter 52 and 55 of the Tariff Act. The relevant chapter note 1 to chapter 52 and Chapter note 2 of chapter 55 of the Act specifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no conversion of goods from one form to another in the instant case. Further, it is also not disputed that the appellants have received duty paid grey yarn in cone form and also sold dyed yarn in cone form, which indicates that overall duty payable is only in respect of process of dyeing which has not been undertaken by the appellants. From the above, it is conclusive that there is strength in the contention of the appellants that they had bonafide that they were not doing any manufacturing and hence, not liable to take registration or pay duty on the clearances of the yarn and that it is not a case of duty demand arising from wilful misstatement, suppression of facts with an intent to evade duty. They have also put forth that they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
