TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 654X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 126/2003 21-4-03 April 1999 to Sep 1999 Rs. 1,54,201/- No. 173/2003 May 2000 to Nov. 2000 Rs. 3,35,569/- Common facts of the cases are that FIL had removed cotton yarn manufactured by it to job worker under Rule 96E of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 (CER), for further manufacture without payment of duty. Yarn was converted into knitted fabrics and exported. Rule 96E provided for removal of cotton yarn for further process such as weaving to another factory. For the purpose of the Rule factory means a factory working with the aid of power in which - (i) the said yarn is spun and cotton fabrics are woven; or (ii) only cotton fabrics are woven and the duty thereon is pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sary for Revenue to establish for even goods for which procedures have not been followed that the goods entered the domestic market. Since the same has not been done, the demand cannot be upheld, we would find that the appeal in this case should be allowed; Reliance is also placed on the decision of Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal in GTN Textiles Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad-III reported in 2005 (189) E.L.T. 296 (Tri.-Bang.), wherein it has been held that removal of cotton yarn from one factory of assessee to another for processing or packing or for manufacture of cotton fabrics did not require payment of duty in terms of Rule 96E of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. The ld. Counsel cites the following observations in the said decision. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that the demands are made solely on the basis that the movement of the impugned consignments of cotton yarn were not in terms of the Rule 96E of the erstwhile CER as the goods were received for conversion in a facility not conforming to the definition of factory in the said Rule 96E. There is no dispute that all the impugned consignments were converted into fabrics and exported. If the assessee had followed the procedure under the Notification No. 47/94-C.E. (N.T.), the liability confirmed against the assessee would not have entailed. As per the ratio of the Affan Shoes Pvt. Ltd., case cited supra, the impugned demands are not sustainable as, undisputedly the impugned goods had not been diverted for home consumption. In the circumsta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
