9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al position and noted that the respondent had maintained separate register. Further, the tribunal on examining the facts, found that the difference cited between the table (as mentioned in the order-in-original)and the issue register for ADD material submitted by the respondent with respect to Issues to Production and closing stock was only on account of difference in methodology adopted for reflection of closing stock in the table vis- -vis the register and the same was duly reconciled and certified in terms of the chartered accountants certificate which was furnished before the tribunal. Further, the tribunal pointed that macro-comparison of the available stock of polypropylene from known ADD jurisdiction vis- -vis DTA clearance du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration: (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case the Learned Tribunal is correct in its conclusion that the assessee was not liable to pay Anti Dumping Duty even when he himself opted for the condition Sl. No.2 of the Notification No.23/2003-CE dated 31.03.2003? (ii) Whether the decision of Learned Tribunal is perverse in passing the impugned Order by ignoring the facts and circumstances of the instant case which was considered by the adjudicating authority in the Order-in-Original? (iii) Whether the Learned Tribunal is right in granting the benefit of exemption notification to the assessee even in absence of any conclusive proof/evidence as to the goods for sale in DTA were manufactured wholly ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 29th May, 2013. The short question which falls for consideration is whether the assessee had maintained separate records of the polypropylene granules imported from ADD Jurisdiction and utilized the same only in the manufacture of export goods. The assessee contended that the onus was entirely upon the revenue to establish that the levy/charge that import of inputs from ADD jurisdiction were used in the manufacturing of finished goods cleared to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) and it cannot be presumed and assumed. In support of his contention, the revenue had placed reliance in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana vs. Malwa Cotton spinning Mills Ltd. reported in [2010] 252 ELT 517 (P H). The tribunal took into cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
