9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 666X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appellant submits that in so far as the unlaminated fabric of the appellant is concerned, the same was at material times, exempted from payment of Central Excise duty. However, under the provisions of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, the laminated fabrics were subject to duty of Central Excise as notified from time to time. The appellant submits that although the appellant did not have the machinery to manufacture laminated fabrics in his own factory, the appellant was getting the same manufactured on his behalf and account by sending unlaminated fabrics to laminators. Under the provisions of Notification No. 63/87 dated 1-3-1987, as amended, the activity of laminating of unlaminated fabrics was exempted from payment of duty subjec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /-, demand for duty of Rs. 9,991.80 on 640.5 Kgs of HDPE Tapes was confirmed, recovery of Central Excise duty of Rs. 61,841/- on 3,964.14 Kgs of HDPE Tapes was ordered, recovery of duty Rs. 26,805.90 on 4025.70 Kgs of HDPE Tapes was ordered, Central Excise duty of Rs. 24,149.16 was demanded on 44046 Mtrs of laminated fabrics, duty of Rs. 23,665.96 on 44,730 Mtrs of laminated fabrics was confirmed, Central Excise duty of Rs. 34,672.31 on 44730 of HDPE sacks was demanded and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on Polyfill Sacks. Hence the appeal. 5. Shri Chandrakant Patel, proprietor appearing for the appellant firm and reiterated the grounds of appeal. Learned DR Shri D.S. Negi on behalf of the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipt of laminated fabrics under Chapter X procedures was verified by the officers. The appellant submitted that without considering all these submissions, the Commissioner had simply relied upon the ratio to confirm the demands on products at various stages on the basis of theoretical formula. 7. On going through the Order in Original, we find that as rightly pointed out by the appellant none of the submissions relating to Chartered Engineer certificate, standards prescribed by BIS, letter issued by IPCL, has been considered. As pointed out by the appellant other than the formula and excess stock which was found, there is no other evidence available. It is well established that for demanding duty on clandestine removal something more t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
