9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... old (Control) Appellate Tribunal confirmed and reject these appeals. - Civil Appeal No. 5472-5473 of 2000 - - - Dated:- 13-3-2003 - S.N. Variava and A.R. Lakshmanan, JJ. M.L. Verma, Senior Advocate (Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates, with him) for the respondent. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Anshul Singal and Ms. Hema Chattri, Advocates, for the appellant. [Judgment per : A.R. Lakshmanan, J.]. - The appellant-firm filed these appeals challenging, inter alia, the judgment and order dated 25-2-2000 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi being Miscellaneous Order No. M/12/2000-D in E/ROM/125/99-D in Application No. E/2618/90-D and final order No. 487/98-D, dated 15-6-1998 in Appeal No. E/2618/1990-D, whereby the Tribunal has held that 'Taspa' yarn manufactured by the appellant was covered under Heading No. 56.06 of the Central Excise Tariff and, therefore, confirmed the demand of duty of central excise of Rs. 5,63,066.40 and penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. The facts of the case in brief are as follows :- The appellant-firm was issued a licence under the Central Excise Act, 1944 for carrying out the processing work of ya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) 73 ECR 383. Since the impugned judgment of the Tribunal suffered from error apparent on the face of the record, the appellant filed a Miscellaneous Application for rectification of mistake, being Application No. E/ROM/125/99-D and pointed out that the facts of the appellant were closely comparable to the facts of Pratik Crimpers v. Collector of Central Excise, Mumbai, 1998 (101) E.L.T. 437, the latter judgment of the Tribunal particularly, with regard to yarns being run parallel, the manufacturing process being common and the machineries being the same. 5.The Tribunal rejected the application for rectification of mistake vide judgment and order dated 25-2-2000 and held that 'Taspa' yarn manufactured by the appellant was covered under Heading No. 56.06 of the Central Excise Tariff and, therefore, confirmed the demand of duty of central excise of Rs. 5,63,066.40 and penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. 6.The present appeal was filed by the appellant in this Court on the basis that the Full Bench of the Tribunal has, by its final order dated 22-5-2000, upheld the view taken by it in the case of Pratik Crimpers (supra), which facts and decision are same to the facts of the case of the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 22 decided the issue and held the 'Taspa' yarn to be classifiable under Chapter 54 and upheld the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Pratik Crimpers (supra) while rejecting the view taken in the case of Dhamanwala Silk Mills (supra) and since the judgment of the Pratik Crimpers's case was later in point of time than the case of Dhamanwala Silk Mills (supra) and since the Tribunal in the case of Pratik Crimpers (supra), had also considered the Board's circular and the earlier contrary judgment in case of M/s. Garden Silk Mills Ltd. v. C.C.E., 1995 (78) E.L.T. 580 (T), therefore, it was incumbent on the part of the Tribunal to have considered and applied the ratio of Pratik Crimpers's (supra) read with the Board's circular by passing the impugned order. She further submitted that it is incorrect to state that merely because the process produces special effect slub/loop, the yarn is classifiable under Heading No. 56.06 and that for the yarn to be classified under Heading No. 56.06, the presence of core yarn is mandatory and that there being no core yarn in the product manufactured by the appellant, the same is not classifiable under Heading No. 56.06. 9.Per contra, Shri M.L. Ve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, should not interfere with the considered order of the commission unless it is satisfied that the order of the commission is perverse, not based on evidence or on misreading of evidence, keeping in mind the fact that the commission is an expert body. 12.In the case of M/s. Asian Paints India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, (1988) 2 SCC 470, this Court held that the finding of fact arrived at on relevant and valid material cannot be easily interfered with. 13.We have carefully perused both the orders under appeal. In our opinion, the Commissioner and the Tribunal have rightly decided that the sample appears to satisfy the requirements of definition of 'Fancy Yarn' as given in the standard technical literature and appears to be covered under Heading No. 56.06 as 'special yarn' of Central Excise Tariff. 14.In the instant case, on collection of intelligence to the effect that the unit has been manufacturing and removing excisable goods, namely, fancy yarn of the category of the special yarns specified under Heading No. 56.06 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 without payment of duties of excise leviable thereon, thereby indulging in a large scale evasion of Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that they are engaged in processing of yarn such as crimping/texturising for which they have got one machine of Lohia make - Model Ht. 416, which has got 144 spindles; that mostly they are carrying out crimping process on Nylon yarn of different deniers, as also on polyester filament yarn of various deniers; and that they have not done any crimping process on pay. He further replied that for the manufacture of T6 denier polyester crimped yarn as described in their invoices, they have used two yarns polyester yarn of 75 deniers and the other viscose yarn of 75 deniers and Processed in the same way as described alone in respect of 20x30 quality yarn there is no slub effect, but in the yarn of 75 deniers quality there is slab effect; and added that they are using the yarns together in their crimping machine the base yarn is of 75 denier polyester filament and the slub effect yarn is 75 denier viscose, and that the ratio of quantity of base yarn to slub effect yarn is 1:1.5. 16.The officers have also recorded the statement of Shri Ishwarbhai Durlabhbhai Modi, Manager of M/s. Ishwar Textiles of Surat, who had purchased 20x30 quality 'Taspa' yarn from the unit. He stated that they h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise Tariff Act, 1985 without their having applied for and obtained a licence in Form 14 and failed to determine their liability to duty in respect of the aforesaid goods manufactured and removed by them without payment of duty leviable thereon. They have also failed to file classification lists and price lists as required and failed to prepare and issue gate passes in the prescribed form for the removals of the aforesaid goods and further felled to maintain statutory accounts of the production and removals of the said goods manufactured by them in their factory and suppressed to supply the material facts with a deliberate and wilful intent to evade payment of Central Excise Duty. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the conduct of the appellant, as above mentioned, invited the intervention of the Department since the appellant has committed the offence of the nature as described in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 by reason of wilful misstatement and suppression of facts with an intent to evade payment of duty. We have perused the reply- submitted by the appellant to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
