TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , for the Respondent. [Order per : Mathew John, Member (T)]. The Respondent is a 100% EOU manufacturing polyester viscose yarn. They supplied such yarn to M/s. Punjab State Handloom Weavers Apex Cooperative Society Ltd, (hereinafter referred to as WEAVCO ) claiming exemption under Notification No. 4/97-C.E., dated 1-3-1997. This exemption was available if such yarn was for use on handlooms. Certain investigations conducted at the end of WEAVCO showed that they had sold such yarn for use in powerloom units and the said exemption was misused. When this fact was brought to the notice of the respondents, they deposited duty amounting to Rs. 3,64,544/- vide TR-6 challan dated 4-11-2000 applying duty rates as applicable under Notificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue has filed the appeal. 3. The learned AR for Revenue submits, in this case that the respondents could not have availed Notification No. 4/97-C.E. for the reasons that the notification was not applicable to them and also for the reason that the end-use specified in the notification was not complied with and since goods were diverted for use other than the one specified in Notification No. 4/97-C.E. Regarding eligibility for Notification No. 8/97-C.E. he submits that the respondents use both indigenous raw materials and imported raw materials but the respondents could not produce documents showing that the goods were produced wholly from indigenous raw material. 4. The Respondents submit that they issued the goods without payment of exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dents did not import any polyester fibre or viscose fibre during the impugned period or their claim that the AR-4s were countersigned by Excise officers certifying that the goods were manufactured from indigenous material. Beyond this, it is not practicable to adduce evidence about a negative fact that no imported material was used So we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 8. In the case of interest, we find that the payment has been made before 11-5-2001 when Section 11AB got amended. Prior to that, the legal position was that interest is not leviable in the type of cases, as held by the Tribunal in Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. CCE - 2003 (156) E.L.T. 995 (Trib.). So we do not find any reason to int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
