9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... XCISE [ 2015 (11) TMI 94 - SUPREME COURT] where this Court considered the very exemption notification and the use of wax in manufacturing of cotton yarn. After detailed analysis of the submissions made on behalf of the Revenue and Assessee and after considering the process of manufacturing cotton yarn and definition of raw material , ultimately it is observed and held that the wax used in manufacturing of cotton yarn is a raw material/input and therefore, the Assessee is not entitled to the benefit of notification dated 1-3-1997. Therefore, on merits the Learned CESTAT is not right in holding that the Assessee was entitled to benefit of Notification No. 8/97 for concessional rate of duty. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned final Judgment and Order No. 842/2009, dated 19-3-2009 passed by the learned Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), South Zonal Bench at Bangalore in Appeal No. E/353/2007 [2017 (355) E.L.T. 152 (Tri. - Bang.)], by which, the Learned CESTAT has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent herein - Assessee and has set aside the demand of customs duty and imposition of penalty and interest, the Revenue has preferred Civil Appeal No. 1011/2017. As such the Revenue preferred the customs appeal before the High Court against the impugned judgment and order passed by the Learned CESTAT which is the subject matter of Civil Appeal No. 1011/2017. However, the Division Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on yarn. After detailed analysis of the submissions made on behalf of the Revenue and Assessee and after considering the process of manufacturing cotton yarn and definition of raw material , ultimately it is observed and held that the wax used in manufacturing of cotton yarn is a raw material/input and therefore, the Assessee is not entitled to the benefit of notification dated 1-3-1997. Therefore, on merits the Learned CESTAT is not right in holding that the Assessee was entitled to benefit of Notification No. 8/97 for concessional rate of duty. 6. However, at the same time, it was/is the case on behalf of the Assessee that the notice/demand was beyond the period of limitation and that the Department wrongly invoked the extended period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
