9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 607X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riff Act, 1985 and were procuring nylon multi-filament yarn of 210 deniers for the manufacture of such goods. The final product is made out of nylon twine which is obtained by twisting and turning the nylon filament yarn so procured. The demand in the present case is on nylon twine which was classified by the appellants under CET sub heading 5607.90 and cleared under exemption from payment of duty in terms of notification no. 6/2002Ce dated 1.3.2002 as per sr. no. 142 of the table to the notification. For the period subsequent to 9.7.2004, the appellants had cleared nylon twine availing exemption in terms of notification 30/04 as per sr. no. 6 of the table to the notification. According to the Revenue, the benefit of exemption under notific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e have heard both sides. 4. We find force in the submission of the appellants that the benefit of exemption in terms of notification no. 30/04 with effect from 9.7.04 cannot be denied to them for the reason that the product in question viz. nylon twine has been manufactured out of monofilament/multi-filament yarn on which undisputedly no credit of duty has been taken. The language of the notification does not lend itself to the interpretation of the Revenue viz. that the inputs should be duty paid. The only condition in the proviso is that no credit of duty on the inputs used in the manufacture of the goods for which the benefit of the notification is being claimed, should be taken. Since admittedly, no credit was taken on the inputs used ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it of notification 6/02 would cover the period upto 8.7.04. The notices, are therefore, beyond the statutory period of limitation of one year. Neither appellant can be held guilty of suppression so as to invoke the extended period of limitation against them. In the case of Garware Marine Inds. Ltd. we accept the contention of the appellants, on the perusal of the records, that they declared the denierage of the nylon filament yarn which was used by them as input in the manufacture of nylon twine. Therefore, the findings of the Commissioner that the department was not made aware of the denierage of the product is not factually correct, since M/s Garware Marine Ind. Ltd. had declared the denierage of their product (from which it was clear tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
