TMI Blog2000 (4) TMI 400X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erials such as scoured wool, mohair top, acrylic fibre polyester yarn etc. to be used for the manufacture and export of export products like blended knitwears. They also obtained Central Excise Registration Certificate No. 18/R-XI/A,W,Yarn/4 dated 20-10-1994 under the provisions of Rule 174 read with Notification No. 49-CE/94 (NT) dated 22-9-1994 issued under Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules (in short CER). For getting the wool worsted yarn (intermediate goods) manufactured outside, they followed Chapter X Procedure of CER, as envisaged in condition No. (VII) of the above said notification and that yarn was to be ultimately used by them in the manufacture of blended knitwears, the final products. For receiving the intermediate inputs without payment of duty from appellants No. (2) (PWSM) and (3) (PWL), they obtained certificate from the jurisdictional Central Excise Range and against those certificates the intermediate goods by these appellants were supplied to them without payment of Central Excise duty leviable thereon, under the provisions of Notification No. 49/94-CE dated 22-9-1994 during the period in question. 4. However, the enquiry revealed that appellant Nos. (2) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ermediate goods from the premises without payment of duty for supply to appellant No. (1). 6. The adjudicating authority (Commissioner), however, did not accept the version of the appellants and confirmed the demand against them and also imposed penalty through the impugned order, as detailed above. 7. Feeling dissatisfied with the impugned order of the Commissioner, the appellants have come up in appeals before the Tribunal. 8. The duty has been raised from the appellants No. (2) and (3) on the sole ground that they have failed to comply with the condition No. (1) of the Notification 49-CE/94 dated 22-9-1994. The penalty has been imposed on appellant No. (1) on the ground that he abetted appellants No. (2) and (3) in the removal of the goods without discharging the duty liability. Therefore, the sole issue involved is as to whether there had been non-compliance with the condition No. (1) of Notification No. 49/94, by the appellants in question and if so, to what effect. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that there had been in fact no non-compliance with the notification in question as appellants No. (2) and (3) manufactured the intermediate goods, on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otification referred to as the intermediate goods), as goods whose removal from the place of manufacture shall be permitted without payment of duty for supply to manufacturers of all articles (hereinafter in this notification referred to as the resultant articles) subject to the following conditions, namely :- Condition No. (i) that the manufacturer of the intermediate goods holds an Advance Intermediate Licence or has applied for such licence to the Licensing Authority and has obtained an acknowledgement for the same, or as the case may be, has been permitted by the licensing authority to manufacture for supply of such goods to a manufacturer who is an holder of a Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate and an Advance Licence under the Duty Exemption Scheme (hereinafter in this notification referred to as the ultimate exporter). Its bare perusal shows the manufacturer of the intermediate goods has to comply with either of the three conditions mentioned therein. He should either hold an advance intermediate licence or must have applied for such a licence to the licensing authority and obtained acknowledgement for the same or as the case may be, must have been permitted by the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants reflected the same in the RT 12 Returns. The licensing authority i.e. DGFT when appellants these appellants along with appellant No. (1) applied for no objection certificate for the manufacture of the intermediate goods through letters dated 7-6-1985 and 13-6-1995, were informed only to this extent that they were required to comply with para 120 of the Hand Book of Procedures 1992-97 (vol. 1). This is not the case of the Revenue that compliance of this para of the Hand Book, was not made by any of the appellants. 15. It is also not the plea of the Revenue that appellants No. (2) and (3) did not manufacture the intermediate goods from the raw materials supplied to them by appellant No. (1) or that they misappropriated the raw material wholly or partly or that the intermediate goods manufactured by them were less in quantity than they were required to prepare. There are also no allegations against them in the show cause notices that there had been clandestine removal and sale of the intermediate goods by them in the market. Rather, the impugned order of the Commissioner itself shows that both these appellants supplied the intermediate goods without misappropriating any p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
