9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ether the main applicant, a textile processor was eligible for the Compounded Levy Scheme (CLS) as notified under Notification No.16/2000-CE, dated 30.04.2000, which came into effect from 01.05.2000. This notification introduced a new section of rules by name "Section E-XA-Processed Textile Fabrics" in the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for giving effect to CLS. The dispute, after adjudication is only with respect two Rules 96ZNA and 96ZNB. Particularly, the issue whether the applicant qualified for CLS in view of the two Explanations under Rule 96 ZNA is being disputed. These explanations are reproduced as under:- Explanation I - For the purposes of this section, "independent textile processor" means a manufacturer, who undertake ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of excise laws resulting in this present differential duty demand amounting to Rs.2,17,05,582 / - with interest and also penalty equal to duty. 5. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that they had been recognized as an independent processor under similar compounding schemes for independent processors for periods prior to the notification of the CLS under consideration. The open-air stentor, which they had, was not used for heat setting or drying. According to him, when the fabric is received from the suppliers, it requires initial drying which is called 'batching' in the industry dealing with textile processing and the open air stentor was used only for that purpose and not for heat setting and drying as normally understood in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mission of the appeal. 8. The learned counsel also submits that the applicants had disclosed all facts in the application for availing CLS and the departmental officers visited the factory for verification but orders regarding eligibility for the scheme was not passed promptly. He submits that in such a situation there was no reason for imposing any penalty on any of the applicants. 9. Opposing the prayer of the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned AR for the Revenue submits that the observation mahazar drawn in the factory showed the fact that there were two open-air stentors, one of which was actually in use on the date of visit of the officers. How the open-air stentors could be used is a matter of fact, which cannot be deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
