9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty. The doubled yarn was cleared at nil rate of duty, vide Notification No. 6/2002 dated 1-3-2002, Sl. No. 94 and condition No. 16. There is no dispute on this point. The doubled yarn is returned to their factory for dyeing. The dyed yarn is cleared on payment of duty @ Rs. 2.50 per Kg by availing the same exemption Notification No. 6/2002 dated 1-3-2002, vide Sl. No. 97 read with condition 19 of the Notification. The extract of Sl. No. 97 and condition 19 is given below : "Notification No. 6/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2002 97 51.06, Dyed, printed, bleached or mercerized yarn (containing synthetic or artificial staple fibres), whether single, multiple (folded, cabled or air-mingled, manufactured in a factory which does not have the facilities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntitled for exemption under Sl. No. 97 in Notification No. 6/2002 dated 1-3-2002. Therefore, the appellant is liable to pay differential duty. The appellants contend that when the single yarn is manufactured in their factory and cleared, the duty was paid. Only at the doubling stage, exemption under Sl. No. 94 was availed. The fact remain that at the single yarn stage, the duty has been discharged. Hence, the dyed yarn is actually manufactured out of yarn on which appropriate duty of excise has already been paid. They are legally entitled for the exemption. 2. S/Shri T.R. Sastry, M.S. Nagaraj and V.K.S. Iyer, learned Advocates appeared on behalf of the appellants. Smt. Shoba L. Chary, learned JCDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue. 3. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Vadodara v. Dhiren Chemical Industries [2002 (139) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] and maintained that the doubled yarn did not suffer any duty and hence, the benefit of Notification No. 6/2002 under Sl. No. 97 will not be applicable to the dyed yarn which is converted from doubled yarn. While giving comments on the appeal, the Revenue has observed that the appellants contention that if the duty is paid at the doubling stage, they would be eligible for the CENVAT Credit of the same at the dyeing stage and in effect, it would be revenue neutral appears to be correct. 6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. The point to be decided in this case is whether the appellant is entitled to claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
