9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sumer Protection) Regulation 1988, that rag emerge out of fabric and they do not emerge out of old cotton clothes. It is admitted in the show cause notice that appellant was using old clothes for making pulp. Revenue could not make out a case that appellant was not eligible for the said benefit - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee. - APPEAL No. EX/70584/2016-EX[DB] - FINAL ORDER NO.72714/2018 - Dated:- 29-11-2018 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Vineet Kumar Singh (Adv.) for Appellant Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, Superintendent (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar , Present appeal is directed against Order-In-Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nveyor belt. Subsequently they were converted into pulp and the said pulp was further, used for the manufacture of paper board. It appeared to Revenue that unless waste paper is more than 75% by weight, the appellants were not eligible for benefit of concessional rate of duty. It was also noticed by Revenue that they did not find hydropulper in the factory of appellant and that hydropupler was essential requirement for processing of waste paper. It also appeared to Revenue that old cotton clothes were cut into rags and since rags was mentioned in the said notification, therefore, appellants were not eligible to avail benefit of said Notification No.12/2012 dated 17.03.2012. Therefore, by denying the said benefit by invoking extended perio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loth of length more than 23 cms. but less than 65cm where width of the fabric is less than 1mtr. He has further submitted that the Revenue has presumed that unless waste paper is used in making pulp the benefit of said Notification No13/2012 is not admissible. He further submitted that the show cause notice has very clearly mentioned that appellant was using old cotton clothes. It is further mentioned that the cotton clothes were cut into rags. The learned counsel has drawn our attention to definition of rag in Textile (Consumer Protection) Regulation 1988 and emphasizes that that rags has been defined as one which is coming out of fabric and not out of old cotton clothes and therefore, he argued that the appellant never used rag and used o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
