9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 972X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es that it is not the case in the show cause notice that M/s. JTL carried out process other than stentering nor is there a specific case or evidence referred in the SCN that M/s. JTL carried out processes on the fabric falling under chapter 54 55 of CETA, 1985 which otherwise also do not specifically include stentering as a process amounting to manufacture. In absence of such a case in the SCN and in absence of evidence to show that M/s. JTL carried out process other than stentering of fabrics falling under chapter 52 or carried out process on the fabric falling under chapter 54 or 55, demand of duty as against M/s. JTL cannot be sustained. The entire case of the revenue is that the seized delivery slips are in respect of fabrics subje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2022 - Final Order No. A/12222/2022 - Dated:- 21-12-2022 - MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Rahul Gajera, Advocate appeared for the Appellant Shri. V.G. Iyengar (Authorized Representative) for the Respondent ORDER The present appeals are directed against Order-In-Appeal (OIA) No. AHM-EXCUS-001-APP-019 to 022/2022-23 dated 06-06-2022 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, Ahmedabad. M/s. Jindal Texo Fab Ltd ( M/s. JTL ) Plot o. 103-104, Phase I, GIDC, Vatva, Ahmedabad 382445 is the appellant upon whom the duty demand of Rs. 20, 07,924.04/- has been upheld under provisions of section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ( Act ) along with equal penalty under secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty demand and imposed penalty equivalent to duty, he further imposed Rule 26 penalty upon the Director of the appellant amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/-. Learned commissioner (appeals) vide OIA dated 30-05-2007 except for reducing the penalties, rejected the appeal of the appellants. Both, appellants and the department preferred appeal and this Tribunal vide Order No. A/1112 to 1115/WZB/AHD/2007 dated 29-5-2008 remanded the matter to Learned commissioner (appeals) with a direction to consider the plea of the appellant that process of Stentering does not amount to manufacture. Learned Commissioner (appeals) thereafter vide OIA dated 31-12-2008 again confirmed the duty demand maintaining the reduction of penalties. The appellants preferred appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appearing for the appellants submitted that learned commissioner (appeals) could not have relied upon the statements straight way without having examined the deponents in this behalf circumventing the specific direction of this Hon ble Tribunal to consider the plea of following the procedure mandated by section 9D of the Act; those deponents having not retracted the statements is not any of the exceptions stated under the provisions of section 9D of the Act. He submitted that when after two rounds of litigation finally learned commissioner (appeals) acceded that process of stentering does not amount to manufacture, however, as though there was compulsion to confirm duty, he proceeded to confirm the duty on some other ground exterior to SCN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cess of stentering of fabrics sent by M/s. Shrinathji Textiles and removal of such finished fabrics under the delivery slips to various parties from its premises. While denying the very activity having been carried out at its premise, it was the contention of the appellants before the authorities below that even if it is held that M/s. JTL carried out the process of stentering on fabrics sent by M/s. Shrinathji textiles, process of stentering does not amount to manufacture as such process do not bring about a change in the fabrics which is of lasting nature and no new or distinct goods thereby has come into existence. Learned commissioner (appeals) in the impugned order has held that although stentering of fabrics falling under chapter 52 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revenue is that the seized delivery slips are in respect of fabrics subjected to Stentering in the factory of M/s. JTL is based on statements of the Director of M/s. JTL, proprietor and power of attorney holder of M/s. Shrinathji Textiles, some buyers and warehouse keeper. Despite specific direction to consider the plea of the appellants as per this tribunal order dated 25.07.2018, none of these persons have been examined as witness or cross-examination was given by adjudicating authority in terms of section 9D of the Act. It can be seen that statements having not been retracted, as held by the authorities below, is not the exception provided under section 9D of the Act and therefore as laid down in the following judgments, their testimony ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
