9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 614X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is no direct evidence to show that such manufacturing was taking place. The Appellant has contended that their goods during the relevant period were entitled for exemption from payment of duty in terms of N/N. 139/77-CE dt 18.6.1977 and 78/82-CE dt 28.2.1982. This aspect has also not been considered by the Commissioner. SSI Exemption - denial on the ground that the Appellant unit was registered as SSI unit only for the product Art Silk and the said SSI registration did not cover Blowing Wrapper Cloth hence the SSI exemption is not available - Held that: - the relevant consideration for granting SSI exemption was level of investment and the turnover of the unit and not the product. This aspect ought to be addressed in favor of asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst the assessee assertion of having sold both grey and processed wrappers, the assessee had been selling only processed wrapper. The goods being classified under chapter 55 of CET are liable to pay duty. Accordingly a demand of ₹ 20,90,353/- was proposed against the Appellant. It was also proposed to confiscate the seized goods of 610 linear metres of processed Blowing Wrapper cloth, to confiscate land building, plant machinery etc. and to impose a penalty upon the same. The demands and penalties were confirmed by the adjudicating authority, against which the Appellant has filed an appeal before the CEGAT. The CEGAT vide order dt 4.11.1996 upheld the order of confiscation of goods and imposing redemption fine, however, set-aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he manufacturing was taking place. He submits that the demand cannot be confirmed solely on oral evidence as no evidence has been found that they were manufacturing Blowing Wrapper Cloth before February 1986. He relies upon the following judgments: (a) CC (Imports) Vs Wings Electronics (2015 (323) ELT 450 (SC) (b) Vinod Kumar Jatia Vs Union of India (2014 (303) ELT 532 (Del) (c) Universal Enterprises Vs CCE, Mumbai (2011 (271) ELT 261 (Tri, Mumbai) He submits that even if the statements relied upon by the Department are to indicate that the Appellant were manufacturing Blowing Wrapper Cloth from 1984 onwards, as recorded in Para - 5 of the Tribunal order dt 4.11.1996 in that event also duty cannot be confirmed on clearance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant has been contesting the demand prior to 1986 on the ground that there is no evidence of manufacturing the impugned goods prior to this period. Further, that even from the statement of Shri P.N. Khandelwal, Processing Manager of M/s Santogen Textile Mills wherein he stated that they have been purchasing the goods from the Appellant for the past 3 years. The Appellant has contended that this statement would indicate that the Appellant were processing the fabrics from 1984 onwards and, thus no duty can be demanded prior to this period. They have also contended that prior to 1986, the impugned goods being classifiable under tariff item No. 22(i) (b) were exempted in terms of Notification No. 139/77-CE dt 18.6.1977 and 78/82-CE dtd 28.02. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
