9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 977X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cy. 1997-2002 and paid 50% of the BCD leviable under similar goods imported into India in terms of Notification No. 2/95-CE dated 4.1.1995. The matter had earlier reached the Tribunal but it was remanded with following direction by order dated 5.4.2006: "3. Considering arguments from both sides as well as the cited circular dated 18.02.1998 issued by the Board, we set aside the impugned order in so far as relates to Order-in-Original No. 87/99 dated 12.01.1999 and remand the matter to the original authority who shall decide the matter afresh in light of the cited circular dt. 18.02.1998 and given n adequate opportunity of hearing to the respondents to produce the required permission from the Development Commissioner/ Board of Approval. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bserved as follows: - "5. It has been contended by the Appellants that in the process of manufacture of yarn, a considerable amount of cotton is not converted into yarn and is generated as cotton waste which consist of small fibres. According to them such waste, being not in the form of yarn, is not rejects of yarn but it is cotton waste arising in or in relation to manufacture of cotton yarn. It has not been controverted by the Revenue that the waste which is cleared by the Appellants to the DTA is such waste which is arising out of production process. We, therefore, find substance in the submissions of the learned Advocate that what is being cleared by them in addition to the cotton yarn to DTA is waste and not rejects of cotton yarn. Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of any specific mention of making the said amendment in Para 9.20 of the Policy applicable for the past period, amended Para 9.20 cannot be applied to the clearances ejected by the Appellants during the financial year 2000-2001. The earned Advocate has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of J.A. Abdul Hamidv. CCE, Madras, 1973 MLJ (1) 311 wherein it has been held that the limit placed on Section 65 of the Gold (Control) Act cannot be imported into Clause (b) of Section 65. The Revenue has not succeeded in showing any para in the Export and Import Policy during the relevant period which provided that DTA sales on all accounts for all sectors would not exceed 50% of the FOB value of previous financi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
