9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appeal is admitted on the above question of law and taken up for final hearing by consent of both the parties. 3. The assessee is a 100% Export Oriented Unit engaged in the manufacture of All Wool Yarn, Wool Poly Yarn, Acrylic Yarn, Acrylic Wool Yarn, and Wool silk Yarn falling under Chapters 51 and 55 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 4 During the years 2003-04 to 2007-08 the assessee cleared the aforesaid goods in domestic tariff area by availing the benefit of concessional rate of duty as per Notification No. 23/2003 dated 31st March, 2003. Subsequently, various show cause notices were issued to the assessee by invoking the larger period of limitation on the ground that the assessee availed the benefit of Notificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the larger period of limitation for demanding the duty. During the period 2003-04 to 2007-08 the assessee cleared the final products by availing the benefit of Notification No. 23 of 2003, whereunder, it was obligatory to manufacture the final products by procuring the raw material indigenously. In other words, the benefit of the said notification was not available if the imported inputs were used in the manufacture of the final product as raw materials. 11. In the present case, the assessee had imported Selbana (anti-static oil) and Katex (coning oil) which were used in the manufacture of the final product. According to the revenue, failure on the part of the assessee to disclose user of the aforesaid imported raw materials in the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not identifiable in the final product by reason of the fact that it gets consumed in the manufacturing process. In the present case, since the approximate consumption of imported 'Selbana' is only 0.02%, it may be that the assessee formed a belief that the same was consumable and not a raw material in the manufacture of the final product. 15. Moreover, it is not in dispute that in the present case, the plant, machinery and building belonging to the assessee have already been taken over by the Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. in the year 2007. Apart from the above, the assessee has also been declared as a sick unit under the Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985. 16. In these circumstances, in our opinion, in the facts an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
