9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 873X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also on other quantification therefore matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for re-quantification of the correct duty liability as claimed by the appellant that the duty liability is of ₹ 4,82,504/- and not ₹ 16,47,067/- - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/607 & 608/06-MUM - A/86869-86870/17/EB - Dated:- 17-4-2017 - Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri. Prakash Shah, Advocate for the Appellants Shri. Ashutosh Nath, Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair The issue involved in the present case is whether the doubling of single yarn is amount to manufacture and liable to duty. Second issue is whether double yarn manuf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... para 3 after recording submission of the appellant that the goods were exempt from payment of duty by notification no.35/95-CE, remanded the proceedings to the adjudicating authority for the purpose of ascertaining the quantum of the credit available to the appellants and did not decide the question of applicability of the exemption. 3. On the other hand, Shri. Ashutosh Nath, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He further submits that in the budget for 1995-96, new chapter note No.1 under Chapter 53 and note no.2 in Chapter 22 was inserted, which states that in relation to the product of heading No.52.04, 52.05, 52.06 and 55.09 and 55.10, process of dying, print ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both sides. 5. The impugned order is against denovo adjudication order as in the earlier order this Tribunal had remanded the matter to the Original adjudicating authority for denovo adjudication order with following observations. 3. It is now settled that modvat credit cannot be denied solely on the ground that it was not claimed when the goods were cleared. The Commissioner(Appeals) does not adduce any material in support his view, the appellant, despite knowing that duty was payable on the doubled yarn, failed to do so. The appellant s contention was that the goods were exempted from payment of duty by Notification 35/95. 4 The question whether the exemption would be available or not is not now one that we are concerned with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icating authority was not barred from making correct quantification not only by considering modvat aspect but also on other quantification therefore matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for re-quantification of the correct duty liability as claimed by the appellant that the duty liability is of ₹ 4,82,504/- and not ₹ 16,47,067/-. We therefore set aside the impugned order, remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for re-consideration of quantification of the demand. Needless to say, appellant should be given sufficient opportunity to explain their re-quantification. The appeal is disposed by way of remand to the original adjudicating authority. (Pronounced in court on 17/04/2017) - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
