9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng under Ch. 6002.93 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 under proper C.Ex. Registration. Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI), Zonal unit, Ahmedabad had called for information regarding details of clearances made and details of NCCD paid thereon during the period 1-3-2002 to 30-4-04. The respondent vide their letter F. No. MPL/EXCISE-DGCEI/2004, dated 19-5-04 submitted that they had cleared 2752,632 Kgs. of polyester yarn falling under Ch. 5402.42 valued at Rs. 16,35,04,709/- for captive consumption during the period 1-3-03 to 30-4-04, and had paid NCCD on the final clearance/sale of polyester texturised yarn manufactured out of it; that they had cleared 1,78,315 kg of PTY falling under CETH 5402.32 valued at Rs. 1,39, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority i.e. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Dvn. IV, Ahmedabad-II, vide OIO No. 642/D/2004-05 dated 23-3-2005, had confirmed the NCCD of Rs. 1,39,856/- alongwith interest and had imposed penalty of Rs. 1,39,856/- on the respondent and had also imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on Shri Bhurchand Khatana, Manager Commercial. 2. On appeal filed by the respondents, the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order set aside the demand and penalties and hence Revenue is in appeal. 3. Even though notice was issued to the respondents to appear for hearing on 30-11-09, 22-2-10 and 18-5-10, no one has appeared nor was there any request for adjournment. Further, no cross objections have also been filed by the respondent. Heard the learned DR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urers for whom job work was done, the manufacturers had discharged the duty liability. The department has chosen not to demand duty in such cases since it would have amounted to double payment. In the case of clearances under consideration to the job worker, neither the respondent nor the job workers discharged NCCD liability at the stage of PTY. Therefore the respondent was required to discharge duty liability on PITY cleared by them to the job worker which they have failed to do. in view of the above position, we find merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue and accordingly uphold the demand on merit. 6. As regards limitation, the respondent claimed before the Original Adjudicating Authority that they had thought that in respect of good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
