TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 447X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndirect Taxation). The brief facts leading to the filing of the appeal are that M/s. Raymond Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of Man-made fabrics, Woollen fabrics and Yarn falling under Chapters 51 and 55 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They also manufactured Polyester Tops, Polyester Wool Blended Tops, Wool Tops and Woollen Polyester Blended Tops (hereinafter referred to as the said goods ) and partly consumed them within the factory of production in the manufacture of yarn without payment of duty in terms of Notification 67/95-CE dated 16-3-1995 and partly cleared the said goods on payment of duty to their other factories. Prior to 1-3-1994, duty on yarn and tops was payable at specific rate. With effect from 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e claimed the exemption for captive consumption under Notification No. 67/95 in respect of Blended Tops, hence no demand of differential duty for Blended Tops was confirmed against the assessee by the Assistant Commissioner s order of October, 1997. The appeal of the assessee against the confirmation of demand on yarn was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by the order dated 8-5-1998 by remand of the proceedings to the Assistant Commissioner for the purpose of determination of value under the provisions of Rule 6(b)(i) of the Valuation Rules with reasonable adjustment taking into consideration all the relevant factors of the comparable goods. Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants had continued to pay duty on the tops cleared to their other factories. Yet, no demand in terms of Rule 6(b)(ii) was confirmed in the October, 1997 and order although duty demand was proposed to be recovered. No appeal was filed by the department against the order of October, 1997 by which duty on yarn alone was confirmed and duty on tops was dropped. In this view of the matter, the appellants cannot be held to be guilty to any suppression with intent to evade payment of duty so as to apply extended period of limitation against them (finding of the Commissioner on the applicability of the extended period of limitation is that the assessee neither declared nor submitted the value of comparable goods nor furnished cost of produ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
