TMI Blog1989 (12) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty of excise is primarily a duty levied on a manufacturer or a producer in respect of the commodity manufactured or produced. Appeal dismissed. - 2151-52 (NM) of 1986 - - - Dated:- 7-12-1989 - Sabyasachi Mukharji and B.C. Ray, JJ. [Judgment per : Sabyasachi Mukharji, J]. - This is an appeal under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act ) against the judgment and order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal ) dated 8th May, 1984. 2. The appeal is by the revenue. The respondent, Decent Dyeing Co., was dyeing acrylic yarn on job charges. The acrylic yarn was being received by the respondent from traders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 10 per kg. claiming the benefit of Notification No. 125/75. The differential duty payment was Rs. 24 per kg. leviable on the base yarn. The respondent denied their liability but it was upheld as mentioned hereinbefore. It was contended on behalf of the appellant before the Tribunal that duty on base yarn was payable by the manufacturers of the base yarn only and the burden of showing that the said duty had not been paid by the manufacturers was on the revenue. The authorities had, however, held that the appellant was liable to pay the differential duty since the appellant had failed to prove the payment of duty on the base yarn and, therefore, the said orders were bad. On the other hand, on behalf of the revenue, it was contended that it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the said Notification reads as follows : S.No. Sub-item No. Description Rate of duty 1. (ii) Textured Yarn produced out of base yarn. The duty for the time being leviable on the base yarn, if not already paid plus ten rupees per kilogram. Admittedly, the respondent had paid duty at Rs. 10 per kg. and had been allowed to clear the goods. The demand for differential duty by way of duty payable on the base yarn was not in dispute. On the base yarn, the Tribunal held, the manufacturer was liable to pay duty only since purchasers of the base yarn from the market could naturally assume that duty on the base yarn would have been paid by the manufacturer before removal and that it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e fact of payment of base duty and it was therefore for the respondent to prove the said fact. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal held in favour of the respondent. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right. 5.Excise is a duty on manufacture. The liability of payment of this duty is on the manufacturer. The language of the notification referred to hereinbefore indicates that only the duty for the time being leviable on the base yarn, if not already paid plus ten rupees per kg. was the liability. The description of manufacture was textured yarn produced out of base yarn. We are clearly of the opinion that in view of the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in the view it took. In this connection, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
