9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 699X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2018 are narrated hereunder: 3. The present review petition is arising out of order dated 31.01.2018 passed by this Court in CEA No.31 of 2017, CEA No.32 of 2017 and CEA No.34 of 2017. 4. Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned Counsel for the review petitioners has argued before this Court that the appeals preferred by the Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax were dismissed on account of letter dated 5-6.12.2005, which was not in existence at all and the same was withdrawn in the year 2006, itself. He has also stated that the aforesaid letter dated 5-6.12.2005 was also not on record. It was shown by the learned Counsel for the respondents during the time of arguments and, therefore, the department was not able to point out that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter is remitted to the Commissioner for calculation of duties payable in terms of notification No.2/95-CE, as interpreted hereinabove. 15. On due consideration of the aforesaid so also the fact that the Assistant Development Commissioner is the final authority, learned Tribunal has rightly held that obtaining soft cotton waste in the course of carding and combing, ginning cotton does not amount to manufacture and no new product with distinct name, usage and character emerges. The cotton waste is exempted under Notification No.23/2003-CE without any condition. The Assistant Development Commissioner unconditionally exempted from duty. 16. On careful examination of the aforesaid, we are of the view that there is no merit in the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concessional rate of duty. Cotton waste sold in DTA in excess of SION can be sold in DTA on payment of full duties. Yours faithfully Sd/ (Suresh Chandra Panda) Development Commissioner. 6. It has also been stated that the respondent-STI was also informed about the aforesaid letter dated 5- 6.12.2005. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondent/STI submits that they were never informed about it and, therefore, in those circumstances reference was made to letter dated 5-6.12.2005, however, the fact remains, whether the respondents were informed or not, the letter dated 5-6.12.2005 was not in existence based upon which the judgment has been delivered. 8. Resultantly, as there is an error apparent on the face of the record, warranting revi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
