Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 1020 - AT - Central ExciseWaiver of pre deposit - Denial of the benefit of Rule 96D - Held that:- Sub-rule (5) of Rule 96D provides that if cotton fabrics after being processed are removed without payment of duty to one or more factories for further processing or to the originating factory, such removal shall be subject to and in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (3). It is seen that sub-rule (3) of Rule 96D provides that when cotton fabris are removed from the factory from where they are manufactured to another factory including a processing factory, the consignor shall follow the procedure as required under Rule 156A and Rule 156B as modified by Rule 173N of the said Rules. In the instant case, the learned Counsel submitted that there is no dispute that the applicant followed the procedure as provided under sub-rule (3) of Rule 96D. On a perusal of the impugned Adjudication order, we find that the Adjudicating authority proceeded on the basis that the fully processed cotton fabrics removed for further processing of LDPE/HDPE coating, it ceases to retain its identity as cotton fabrics and a new distinct commodity emerges of such coating/lamination. Prima facie, we find that there is no change of identity of the processed fabrics at the hand of the processor. In any event, the process of LDPE/HDPE was undertaken at the hands of the principal CVIL. Hence, we find that the applicant made out a strong prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of the entire amount of duty along with interest and penalty - Stay granted.
|