9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 475X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals), which fastens duty liability on the appellant, is without jurisdiction. Extended period of limitation - penalty - Held that: - the dyed yarn for which duty has been demanded is used in the manufacture of goods which were exported. In case the appellants were to pay duty on the inputs used in the exported good, the same would have been liable to be refunded to the appellants themselves as manufacturer exporter. In these circumstances, the situation was revenue neutral and there appears to be no mala fide on part of the appellants. Hence, extended period and penal provisions are not applicable in this case. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/1409 & 1593/2008 - A/61209-61210/2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 24-4-2017 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peals. 2. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the processing in this case was done outside their factory by the job workers and hence Notification No.67/95-CE was not applicable. In that sense, the Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in holding that the goods were captively consumed in the manufacture of durries, which was chargeable to nil rate of duty and the benefit of Notification No.67/95-CE was not available to them. He further argued that the First Appellate Authority's order has proceeded on a different premise as there was no mention of Rule 12B of Central Excise Rules,2002, either in adjudication order or in the show cause notice. At the stage of the Commissioner (Appeals), Rule 12B has been introduced and the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed yarn without payment of duty as the same was being used by the appellant for manufacture of final product, which was exported. We further find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied on the Rule 12B to conclude that the goods were produced on account of the appellant. Ld. Advocate has rightly pointed out that the provisions of Rule 12B were neither invoked in the show cause notice nor dealt in the adjudication order. On being asked, the Learned AR also could not show us where Rule 12B was referred directly or indirectly in the show cause notice. In the absence of the same, the Commissioner (Appeals) clearly travelled beyond the scope of show cause notice. In this regard, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Balarpur Industries P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
