2003 (10) TMI 460

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ter 54 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Revenue has proceeded on the ground that the filament yarn has not suffered duty and what has suffered is the additional duty paid under the Customs Act which cannot be considered as CVD in terms of Apex Court's judgment rendered in the case of Khandelwal Metal & Engineering Works & Another Etc. v. Union of India - 1985 (20) E.L.T. 222 (S.C.) = 1995 ECR 2571. 2. It was argued by the appellants' Vice President, Shri S.S. Thakur that in the first instant, the imported yarn is single yarn which was used for manufacture of double yarn and such a process of manufacture of double yarn does not amount to a process of manufacture as has been held by this Bench in their own case reported in 20 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d by chapter note subsequent to the period in question and therefore the Tribunal even in such circumstances where the note was applicable held that demands are hit by time-bar as rendered in the case of Ridhi Sidhi Yarn P. Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur - 2002 (52) RLT 1037 (CEGAT - Del.). Therefore, even otherwise the demands are barred by time and are not enforceable. 3. Ld. SDR relied on the findings given by the Commissioner in the impugned order and stated that what was paid by the appellants was additional duty under the Customs Act and they having manufactured the item in the country are required to pay excise duty and hence excise duty not having been paid, the benefit of the notification in question which is for a mulfi-fold yarn is no .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r the Revenue is justified in raising demands on the double yarn manufactured by the appellants. Only thereafter, the question of considering the grant of exemption arises. The Apex Court has already held in the case of CCE, Jaipur v. Banswara Syntex Ltd. - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 645 (S.C.) that no excise duty is leviable on the doubling or multi-folding of single yarn as it does not amount to a process of manufacture. Therefore, the question of considering the benefit of exemption notification does not arise. We observe from all the citations cited that the appellants are entitled to claim the benefit. The Tribunal also held in a similar case that the demands are barred by time. When a belief was held that such a process of doubling or multi-fol .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X