TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Factorygiven in other enactments cannot be pressed into service, as argued by Revenue, when the same words have been defined in the Central Excise Act, 1944 - appellants were not availing the benefit of Sr. No. 114 of Notification No. 6/2000-CE dated 01.3.2000 before amendment, as was the case in the relied upon case law of Garden Silk Mills (2014 (10) TMI 809 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD) and also that present appellants never disclosed to the Revenue that POY is procured from their sister concern. It was thus the case of the Revenue that extended period for raising demands under Section 11(A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is invokable. It is observed from the case records that there was a general practice in the trade to claim the benefit of Sr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocate) appeared on behalf of the appellants. Shri P.M. Dave appearing on behalf of his clients argued that their appeals are covered in their favour according to Order NO. A/11805 to 11835/2014 dated 27.10.2014 passed this Bench in the case of Garden Silk Mills Limited vs. CCE ST, Surat-I. Learned Advocate made the Bench go through the provisions contained in Sr. No. 6 of the Table of Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09.7.2004, as amended, and paragraph 9.3 to 9.8 of the order dated 27.10.2014 passed by this Bench in the case of Garden Silk Mills Limited. It was their case that the facts of the case in the relied upon case and the present appeals are the same. It was also argued by the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, 1948, as interpreted by Supreme Court in the case of SGC D TEU vs. SGC IT Limited Anr. [1986-1-LLJ 490 (SC)]. Learned Senior Counsel also argued that the demand is not time barred, becasue the appellants were not availing the benefit of Sr. No. 114 of the Notification 06/2000-CE dated 01.03.2000 as was the facts in the case of M/s. Garden Silk Mills and others. Hence, the Tribunals judgment in the case of Garden Silk Mills Others, in so far it relates to time bar aspect is concerned, would not be applicable to the facts of this case. That appellants have never disclosed the fact that they have not procured POY from outside but procured it from their sister unit. That appellants never disclosed the fact they were single legal ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation. - For the purposes of this explanation, manufacture of yarnsmeans manufacture of filaments of organic polymers produced by, - (a) polymerization of organic monomers, such as, polyamides, polyesters, polyurethanes, or polyvinyl derivatives; or (b) by chemical transformation of natural organic polymers (cellulose, casein, proteins or algae), such as viscose rayon, cellulose acetate, cupro or alginates. 4.1 On perusal of the Order No. A/11805-11835/2014 dated 27.10.2014 in the case of Garden Silk Mills Others, passed by this Bench in the case of Garden Silk Mills vs. CCE ST, Surat-I and others, it is observed that facts involved in the present appeals and the facts involved in the appeals before this Bench while passing ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
