TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Central Excise Tariff Act and demanded duty thereon from the said company for the period 17-6-96 to 30-11-96 by denying them the benefit of exemption Notification Nos. 35/95-C.E., 8/96-C.E. and 4/97-C.E. vide Order-in-Original No. 1/98, dated 12-1-98. The party accepted the classification but contested the demand of duty by preferring appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellate authority, after examining the provisions of the exemption Notifications, held that the party was eligible for exemption from payment of duty on Cotton Embroidery Yarn/Thread and, accordingly, set aside the demand of duty vide Order-in-Appeal No. 1099/99-C.E., dated 23-10-99. The Revenue s Appeal No. E/83/05 is against the appellate Commissioner s order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enefit of Notifications 35/95-C.E., 8/96-C.E. and 4/97-C.E. was available to Cotton Embroidery Yarn/Thread cleared by the assessee during the period of dispute. In the impugned order, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) examined the relevant provisions of the Notifications and found that the yarn/thread would be eligible for exemption under the Notifications. The appellate authority noted that the expression used in each of the three Notifications was meant for use in the manufacture of fabrics . Relying on a circular of the Board, the appellate authority assigned a wider meaning to the expression manufacture of fabrics so as to include processes like knitting, crocheting, embroidery etc. (in addition to weaving) within its ambit. It held th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssification, there was no dispute to be adjudicated upon as regards the classification of the goods. It was not the job of the original authority to amend the pleadings of either of the parties to a given case. The pleadings of the Revenue were contained in the SCNs and those of the assessee were contained in their reply to the notices. If the department wanted to amend any proposal in the SCNs, they could have done so through corrigenda, which was not done in the present case. Therefore, the classification of Cotton Embroidery Yarn/Thread under SH 5205.19 has ever remained beyond dispute in this case. The appellant s challenge against the decision of the lower appellate authority in this connection fails. The remaining challenge is again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cture of fabric is not material insofar as the question whether the yarn/thread is eligible for exemption is concerned. We have already held similar yarn/thread to be eligible for the benefit of the Notifications. The appellant has no case that the Rayon Embroidery Yarn/Thread manufactured by the respondents during the period of dispute is different from the one manufactured and cleared by M/s. Bangalore Tex Processors Pvt. Ltd. In the result, the appellate Commissioner s decision to grant the benefit of the Notifications to the respondents in respect of Rayon Embroidery Yarn/Thread has to be sustained and it is ordered accordingly. Appeal No.E/73/05 also gets dismissed. (Operative part of the order was pronounced in open Court on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
