TMI Blog1998 (12) TMI 252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the quantity of fents and rags had to be calculated on the basis of the total clearances of man-made fabrics from the appellant s factory as well as another factory of Arvind Mills Ltd. situated at Naroda Road, Ahmedabad. 2. A show cause notice dated 24-5-1989 was issued to the appellants proposing reovery of differential duty of Rs. 59,844.60 P. as the department was of the view that the exemption was available only factory-wise and therefore, what was relevant was the quantity of fents and rags based on the clearance of fabrics from the appellant s factory alone. 3. The Assistant Collector confirmed the demand, holding that the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of exemption under the above mentioned Notification for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is notification shall not exceed five per cent of the total quantity of clearances of man-made fabrics falling under heading Nos. 54.09, 54.12, 55.08, 55.11 and 55.12 of the said Schedule during a year." 6. The emphasis in the notification is on factory-wise clearances. The Notification also emphasises that even if there is more than one manufacturer, all the clearances from a factory are to be taken into account for the purpose of computation. In Notification where emphasis is manufacturer-wise, as for example in Notification No. 71/78, the Notification uses the words `by or on behalf of a manufacturer from one or more factories . As the clearances are to be determined factory-wise for the purpose of determining the eligibility to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bbing or not clubbing of clearance from two factories of the appellant company. 7.6 The main issue is that whether Arvind Mills and Ankur Textiles are different manufacturers and, therefore, whether clearances of both the factories would or would not influence the aggregate quantity of clearance of fents and rags. 7.7 Hence, the Appellate Collector has erred in going beyond the challenge which was made by the appellant before him. 7.8 That as per 1984 (16) E.L.T. 228, the appellate authority is require confined to confine itself to the subject matter of the appeal. 7.9 Therefore, it may be struck down with consequential relief to the appellant. 8. Ld. DR has drawn attention towards the impugned order and emphasised that it is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be presumed to be there and it is the language of the notification which is required to be construed as it is. The words used in the Notification are from any factory . Therefore, we cannot read them to mean any one or more factories in the absence of such words and the word aggregate quantity can only be taken to mean total quantity cleared during the year. Ld. DR is also right in drawing our attention to the case law cited by him to show that wherever it was intended to cover one or more factories of a manufacturer, it was explicitly so mentioned in the notification. In the present case, in the absence of such a provision, any factory could only be taken to mean or refer to the factory of the appellant from which the goods in question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
