TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yester fiber, the goods should be deemed to have been manufactured out of indigenous material. Though there is some merit in this contention, there is no evidence forthcoming with respect to the composition of blend. If the blended yarn consist of acrylic fiber, even if polyester yarn might not have been imported, inasmuch as acrylic fiber has been imported, the appellant would not be eligible for the duty concession under Notification No. 23/2003. Further, to claim the benefit under the aforesaid notification, the clearance to DTA has to be in terms of the EXIM policy mentioned therein. The composition of the blended yarn could have been easily ascertained from the sales invoices and the prices quoted. This is the second round of litig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd another for an amount of ₹ 65,77,027/- for the period March to August, 2005. As regards the demand for ₹ 2,20,587/-, this demand is on account of levy of Additional Excise Duty (AED) under the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act 1978 and out of this demand, an amount of ₹ 1,64,199/- has already been paid by the appellant under protest and therefore, the balance amount due is only ₹ 56,388/-. This fact has not been taken into account by the adjudicating authority while confirming the demand along with interest and while imposing penalty. As regards the demand for ₹ 65,77,027/- the demand pertains to three types of goods, (i) Acrylic Yarn (ii) Blended/Polyester Yarn and (iii) Blende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20% whereas the applicable rate was only 15%. Therefore, according to the appellant if the correct duty rates are taken into account, the duty demand would come down to ₹ 48,28,124/-. It is also his contention that they produced a Chartered Accountant s certificate certifying that the goods cleared into DTA were manufactured from domestically procured raw materials. Inasmuch as these facts have not been given due consideration by the adjudicating authority, the matter needs to go back to the adjudicating authority for re-consideration. 3. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) on the other hand makes the following submissions. As per the verification done by the jurisdictional Superintendent, the appellant used to import acrylic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ton; however no evidence has been produced by the appellant to show that the yarn cleared was polyester/cotton blend and not polyester-acrylic blend. Therefore, the adjudicating authority was right in denying the benefit of concessional rate of duty on polyester blended yarn under Notification No. 23/2003. It is his further contention that to claim the benefit under said notification, the goods should have been cleared to the DTA as per the provisions of sub-paras (a), (b), (d) and (h) of Para 6.8 of the Export Import Policy. No evidence has been adduced by the appellant to show that the clearance have been made in terms of these paragraphs. In view of the above position, it is his contention that the impugned order is sustainable in law. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoices and the prices quoted. This is the second round of litigation and during the first round, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority with appropriate directions in this regard. In the absence of a clear finding recorded by the adjudicating authority based on documentary evidences, we are constrained to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority once again for verifying all the facts involved and thereafter pass an order in accordance with law. The appellant is also directed to lead evidence before the adjudicating authority showing that blended yarn cleared consisted of only polyester/cotton blend and not any other material and the clearances were effected in terms of the provisions of EXIM policy mentioned in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
