TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le to the composite Textile Mills even though they are exempted from payment of duty under Notification No. 22/96-C.E. in respect of captively consumed yarn and base fabric. The circular clarifies that textile fibres, raw material for composite mills, are brought from the market and hence have to be deemed to be duty paid in view of the Explanations to the said Notification no. 14/2002. Issue is already settled by the Tribunal in the case of Simplex Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai [2005 (4) TMI 406 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] in favour of assessee. - E/2464/2004-Mum. - - - Dated:- 18-10-2012 - Mr. S.S. Kang, And Mr. Sahab Singh, JJ. Appearance Shri M.H. Patil, Advocate for Appellant Shri A.K. Prabhakar, Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e being in force or the additional duty of Customs leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as the case may be, has been paid. (Yarns include fibres as per Explanation VII.) 5. If made from textile fabrics, whether or not processed, on which the appropriate duty of excise leviable under the First Schedule to the said Central Excise Tariff Act and the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, read with any notification for the time being in force or the additional duty of customs leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as the case may be, has been paid. In both the conditions the words used are on which the appropriate duty of excise leviable .......... read with any notificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... benefit under Notification no. 14/2002-C.E. applying the aforesaid clarification issued by the C.B.E. C. The adjudicating Commissioner has discarded the said orders saying that these decisions are not binding on her. She has also failed to take note of the Finance Minister s Budget Speech clarifying the duty structure for the textile industry, notified under Notification No. 14/2002-C.E., which was issued as a part of the Budget 2002-03. 3. In view of the foregoing, we are of the view that the Commissioner has misdirected herself to apply the higher rate of duty in the case of the appellants, whereas the concessional rate under Notification No. 14/2002-C.E. has been allowed in respect of other units similarly situated. We, therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
