9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n favour of the appellant. The issue involved is a neat question of law which involved interpretation of exemption provided in respect of NCCD. It is also a fact on record that appellant have declared their manufacturing process to the department and they were filing ER-1 returns regularly. Since the activity of entire manufacturing i.e. right from the polyester chips stage to the final stage i.e. Polyester Texturised Yarn including the manufacture of intermediate goods on job work basis were in the knowledge of the department, it cannot be said that there is any suppression of fact on the part of the appellant. In respect of the entire demand which is for the period from 01.07.2003 to 31.07.2004, the show cause notice was issued on 31.07.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erest has been confirmed. The same was upheld by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), therefore the present appeal is filed by the appellant. 3. Shri H.D. Dave, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits a synopsis dated 17.11.2021. He argued that issue has been squarely covered in their favour that NCCD is not payable on any goods under Chapter heading 5402 at any stage from Polyester Texturised Yarn stage to Partially Oriented Yarn stage on job work basis. He placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Filatex India Limited vs. CCE, Vapi 2014 (302) ELT 446 (Tri. Ahmd.). He mainly argued that the entire demand is time barred since for the demands of July 2003 to July 2004 the show cause notice was issued on 31.07.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugned order. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the record. On going through the entire case, we are of the opinion that the case can be decided on the ground of limitation itself. We find that the issue involved is of levy of NCCD in respect of Partially Oriented Yarn falling under Chapter 5402 consumed captively for the manufacture of Polyester Texturised Yarn. On the said issue, there are number of judgments as cited by the appellant and some of the judgments are in favour of the appellant. The issue involved is a neat question of law which involved interpretation of exemption provided in respect of NCCD. It is also a fact on record that appellant have declared their manufacturing proces ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
