9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (9) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yarn from various traders in the market and return the same after dyeing. They collect job charges for this activity. The appellants submitted classification list which were approved by the Asstt. Collector. According to the appellants the yarn were cleared on payment of duty at the rate of Rs. 10 per Kg. in terms of Notification No. 125/75. The appellants have also been submitting RT-12 returns every month which were approved by the Central Excise officers. While so show cause notices were issued on the respective dates for the respective amounts as given below :- Appeal No. Date of show cause notice Duty demanded 2623/83 07-4-1977 1,71,824.40 2533/83 29-4-1977 2,52,768.00 2681/83 29-4-1977 40,800.00 2702/83 29-4-1977 2,00,8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yeing Co. v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh). He also submitted the ruling reported in 1978 (2) E.L.T. J 525 (Delhi) (Sulekh Ram and Sons v. Union of India). He submitted that the base yarn being available in the market had to be regarded as having paid the base duty on its removal from the spinning mill. It was for the Department to initiate proceedings against defaulting spinning mills, if any, for unauthorised removal of the base yarn and demand the base stage duty from those mills. He cited 1979 (4) E.L.T. 258 (Shree Niwas Tin Factory) for the proposition that the charging section has to be interpreted alongwith the relevant exemption as one whole ungraded scheme. The decision reported in 1978 (2) E.L.T. 350 (Hemraj Gordhandas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s are engaged in processing of yarn. The appellants have also filed proof to show the quantity of yarn received by them from various traders. After processing, the yarn was delivered to the concerned persons. The appellants admittedly cleared the yarn on payment of duty at the rate of Rs. 10 per Kg. in respect to the job of texturising. According to the appellants the yarn were purchased in open market and hence the duty is to be deemed to have already been paid. 6. In the earlier orders of the Tribunal, cited above, identical question came up for consideration. In those rulings it has been held that the person receiving plain yarn from the market and who were simply texturising it were not the spinners of the base yarn and could not be ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng leviable on the base yarn only "if not already paid". On the facts of these appeals, it is manifest that the appellants have discharged the initial onus that the duty for the time being leviable on the base yarn procured from the market had been paid by the respective suppliers. The rate of duty should be determined as on the date of clearance of the base yarn and not on the date of clearance of the texturised yarn produced out of the base yarn. We do not accept the contention of the Department that the words "duty for the time being leviable on base yarn" should be determined as on the date of the clearance of the texturised yarn. As the appellants have produced enough evidence to make out that the duty on the base yarn ought to have al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
