TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proviso to Section 3 (1) of the CEA, 1944 - the issue is now covered by the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Performance Fibers Ltd’s case [2016 (6) TMI 352 - SUPREME COURT] and since the issue pertain to the period prior to the amendment to Section 3 of CEA, 1944 w.e.f 11.05.2001, differential duty calculated taking into account the formula prescribed under proviso to Section 3 (1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tic tariff area(DTA) without payment of appropriate duty in excess of 50% of FOB Value. A demand notice was issued to them for recovery of the differential duty of ₹ 30,384/- on the finished yarn rejects and ₹ 55,247/- on the raw materials used in the said finished yarn and waste. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed alongwith interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 3 (1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 by levying aggregate of Customs duty and Central Excise duty on the goods cleared in DTA. In support, they referred to the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Performance Fibers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-II 2016 (336) ELT 577 (S.C). Further, it has been submitted that duty amount of ₹ 55,247/- on the raw- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith proviso to Section 3 (1) of the CEA, 1944. We further find that the issue is now covered by the judgement of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Sarla Performance Fibers Ltd s case (supra) and since the issue pertain to the period prior to the amendment to Section 3 of CEA, 1944 w.e.f 11.05.2001, differential duty calculated taking into account the formula prescribed under proviso to Section 3 (1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejected yarn and waste therefore, the demand on the raw-material also cannot be sustained, in view of the decision of this Tribunal in Amitex Silk Mills Pvt Ltd s case (supra) later upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court reported as 2016 (331) ELT A190 (S.C.). 7. In the result, the impugned order is set-aside and the appeal is allowed. (Operative part of the order pronounced in the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
