9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (9) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise Tariff, read with Notification No. 125/75-C.E., dated 12-5-1975. 2. The appellants plead to be engaged in dyeing of acrylic yarn, on job charges, which they receive from traders in market, or from manufacturers of hosiery goods, and were returning to them after dyeing. At the relevant time. Tariff Entry 18 covered three categories of yarn : (i) yarn other than texturised yarn; (ii) texturised yarn out of base-yarn; and (iii) other texturised yarn; and provided different rates of duty. The duty payable on texturised yarn was: "The duty for the time being leviable on the base yarn, if not already paid, plus Rs. 20/- per kg." (emphasis supplied). 3. Notification No. 125/75 had only the effect of reducing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n confirmatory letters from parties to the effect that the base yarn had been purchased by them from open market or from a named manufacturer ; going to the extent of asserting that Central Excise duty had been paid by the said manufacturer vide a specified gate-pass. 5. The demand was confirmed, in spite of evidence and clarifications furnished by the appellants, by the Assistant Collector on the view that the rate of Rs. 10/- per kg. was leviable on the bulked yarn only if it was produced out of duty-paid yarn, and that the appellants are required to produce proof of such payment which, according to the Assistant Collector, they had failed to do. The evidence furnished by them was ignored on the ground that challans merely furnishe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... '1978 E.L.T. (J 492)'; M/s Electric Lamp (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta and Orissa and Others '1978 E.L.T. (J 84)'; and M/s Empire Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. V.P. Bhide and Others '1977 E.L.T. (J 34)'. 8. They further plead that, even though they had furnished enough evidence and material to show that duty had, in fact, been paid, or ought to be presumed to have been paid, but the authorities, instead of conducting verification, have assumed against the appellants which presumption was erroneous. They reiterated that the base yarn purchased from open market had to the treated as duty-paid in the absence of proof to the contrary burden whereof was on the Department. 9. The appellants also p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8/84-D, dated 8-5-1984 (Decent Dyeing Co. v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh). (ii) Order No. 260/84-D, dated 8-5-1984 (Navrang Dying Co. v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh). (iii) Order Nos. 511 to 515/84-D dated 28-9-1984 (M/s. Rampal Scientific Dyers and Others v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh). and prayed that their case being exactly identical, based on the same facts and pleadings, may be decided accordingly. 12. Shri K.C. Sachar, Departmental Representative appearing for the respondents, while conceding that the cases earlier decided by the Tribunal did arise out of similar facts as in the present case, stated that he would nevertheless want to make further submissions. He argued that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thers-1979 E.L.T. (J 258) in support of his contention that there could be cases where though Tariff imposes duty liability but, at a given time, duty may not have been paid due to certain exemptions but, at a subsequent stage, in the event of those concessions/exemptions having been withdrawn, the duty becomes again payable, as 'full duty' will be substituted for 'nil duty'. 14. When pointed out to him that all these arguments have been taken note of in the previous cases decided by the Tribunal, he insisted that all points, argued by him relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of 'J.K. Steel' (supra) and 'Ahura Chemical Products Pvt. Ltd.' (supra), have not been dealt with, and reiterated, that the concept of d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that case. 16. It is noteworthy that their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that, in spite of the fact that it was positively proved in that case that duty had not been paid on the raw material by the manufacturer thereof by virtue of having availed of exemption from duty, but even then, on account of simple fact that they had been purchased from 'open market', relief from payment of further duty was held to be available to the party concerned. 17. The notification in the case before us is couched, on the other hand, in negative terms. We may further add that, in fact, it is the wording of the Tariff entry which is so framed and the notification has the effect of only reducing the additional duty of texturisation from Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
