9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 949X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uper Syncotex, Gulabpura for manufacture of spun yarn and its doubling on job work basis. The appellant cleared the doubled spun yarn to M/s. Super Syncotex without payment of duty on the ground that they are not required to pay any duty in terms of the Notification No. 214/86-C.E. as M/s. Super Syncotex have used the doubled yarn in the manufacture of fabrics cleared on payment of duty. The department was of the view that during this period, the appellant were liable to pay duty on the single ply spun yarn manufactured by them and cleared to M/s. Super Syncotex alter doubling inasmuch as - (a) During the period prior to 20-5-1994, as per the provisions of 3rd proviso to Rule 9(1) and sub-rule (9) of Rule 49 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /artificial staple fibres. 1.2 This show cause notice was adjudicated by.-the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur vide order-in-original dated 25-11-1997 by which the Commissioner confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 21,64,003/-. The lower duty demand was confirmed as the Commissioner held that during the relevant period, the appellant had cleared single ply yarn of "60 P/V 50/50" at the rate of Rs. 124/- 26 per kg. and this value must be taken for calculating the duty liability in respect of this variety of the yarn. Against this order of the Commissioner, this appeal has been filed. 2. This appeal had been dismissed by the Tribunal vide Order No. 1054/99-D, dated 25-11-1997 as though the High Powered Committee of Disputes has d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rms of the provisions of Notification No. 214/86-C.E., that in respect of doubled yarn cleared by the appellant to the principal manufacturer Super Syncotex a separate show cause notice demanding duty has been issued and that in view of this, the duty on the same yarn cannot be demanded from the appellant. He, therefore, pleaded that the impugned order is not sustainable. 5. Shri M.S. Negi, ld. DR, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner and emphasized that the during the period of dispute, the single ply spun yarn manufactured by manufacturer was liable to duty even if captively consumed for doubling, that the appellant are not covered by Notification No. 214/86-C.E., as the goods of Chapters 54 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no such undertaking given by the principal manufacturer has been produced. Moreover, we also find that while the goods manufactured by the appellants are the goods of Chapters 54 and 55, the Col. 2 mentioning the goods manufactured as job work eligible for exemption, does not cover the goods of Chapters 54 and 55. In view of this, the exemption under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. was not available to the single ply yarn manufactured by the appellant out of the fibres supplied by the principal manufacturer. Moreover as mentioned in the show cause notice, during the period of dispute, there was no exemption from duty in respect of the single ply spun yarn manufactured in a factory and used for manufacture of doubled/multi-folded yarn. In view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
