9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 1944 (for short "the Act") against the Final Order No. 01-03, dated 03.01.2005 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "CESTAT"), Bangalore. For the purpose of adjudication, the following pleadings which are made in C.E.A.No.51 of 2005 may be taken note of. The respondent-assessee undertakes the business of processing cotton fabrics falling under Chapter Heading No.52.07 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondent was issued a Show Cause Notice dated 22.12.1999 demanding a duty amount of Rs.2,39,151/- under Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for brevity "the Rules") read with Section 11A of the Act, and to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed under Rule 9(2) and Rule 173Q of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is nothing but pressing of the sarees and permissible process for claiming exemption. viii) They had not used power in any of the processes mentioned in the relevant Central Excise exemption Notification. ix) The Finance Ministry had issued Notification No.35/99-CE dt.04.08.1999 substituting explanation to erstwhile Notification No.5/99-CE dt.28.02.1999 accepting their view point in their representations made by them to the Ministry under Section 11C of Central Excise Act. They have contended that the correct explanation/interpretation should be de facto made applicable to all present cases pending adjudication, keeping in view the right spirit of law. x) No separate penalty is applicable to Sri S.Venkata Ramana, Proprietor, under Rule 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iii) The benefit of exemption under Notification Nos. 8/96 and 9/96 dated 16.03.1996 for the period after 23.07.1996 was not proper. iv) The finding of the Commissioner that Serial No.13 of Notification 9/96 is not correct and the processes mentioned in Serial No.(i) to (xii) also should not be carried out with the aid of power and in that view of the matter, the benefit under Notification No. 9/96 is not available. In addition to the above common grounds with respect to the respondent in C.E.A.No. 49 of 2005, a specific further ground was raised that A.E.D. and B.E.D. was leviable for the period from 01.08.1995 to 04.08.1999 under Notification Nos.41/95 and 8/96. With respect to the respondent in C.E.A.No.51 of 2005, A.E.D. is leviable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g on the fabric. After detailed analysis of the manufacturing process which was extracted in paragraph No.11 of its order, the Tribunal had categorically found that the dyeing and printing processes were done manually, and hence, they are outside the ambit of any dispute as regards their eligibility under Notification No.40/95. Similarly, washing of grey cloth by hand in tanks is very much a manual process. By following earlier CEGAT decision in Final Order No. 733 of 1997, dated 01.03.1997, the process of silicate padding for fixation of ramzol dyes was held to be the process of curing which does not disentitle the exemption in terms of Notification No.40/1995. The Tribunal merely followed the Final Order No.733 of 1997. The use of power e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y in respect of the manufacture of denim fabrics. In relation to the respondents, it is nobody's case that they are manufacturers of denim fabrics or other fabrics mentioned in the prohibited category. As a matter of fact, when we look critically into the orders of both the Commissioner and the Tribunal, the usage of power is only in relation to the activities like pumping of water from the bore-well, small motors being fixed with sterner of the dies, etc. which is not prohibited. A comprehensive analysis and understanding of the notification by which the exceptions carved out to deny the exemption where power is used, would leave no manner of doubt that usage of power is restricted only in an integrated manufacturing process by specify ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be dismissed. From a perusal of the records in relation to other appeals we find that Show Cause Notices in all the three cases are of the same date. The contents of the order of the Commissioner are identical and a common order was passed by the Tribunal. As a matter of fact, the usage of diesel engine is only confined to the case of the respondent in C.E.A.No. 51 of 2005 and there is no such usage of diesel engine in case of other respondents involved in C.E.A.Nos. 47 and 49 of 2005. As the facts are identical, grounds of challenge being identical for the reasons set out supra, the appeals are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the three Central Excise Appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel to the dismissal of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
