TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order No. 60137-60138 / 2018 - Dated:- 28-2-2018 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member ( Judicial ) And Mr. Devender Singh, Member ( Technical ) Shri. Abhinav Kansal, Advocate- for the appellant Shri. H. Singh, AR- for the respondent ORDER Per Ashok Jindal As the issue involved in all these appeals is common, therefore they are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of yarns falling under chapters 52 and 55 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the preventive visit to the unit on 23-2-2005, Shri N.K. Maheshwari, President (Works) of the appellant stated that the appellant is engaged in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ton blended yarn is cleared without payment of duty. On being further asked, he stated that the separate record in respect of generation and sale of waste is maintained in Part-I of the u nit but the waste generated in the manufacturing process of 100% dyed cotton yarn and cotton blended yarn in Part-II of the unit cannot be separated and is sold as cotton waste without payment of duty. From the above it is alleged that in Part-II unit, two types of waste are generated (a) from the manufacturing of 100% dyed cotton yarn under chapter 52 and (b) from the manufacturing of cotton blended under Chapter 55. It was the allegation of the Revenue that the above two kinds of waste generated in separate manufacturing process are required to be cleare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n blended yarn. The machines are cleared as per lotwise. It is fact on record that, the appellant did not keep waste of cotton blended yarn and cotton dyed yarn separately. The waste remains the mixed waste. If at all, the duty is to be demanded, the same is to be demanded only on waste arising out of manufacturing of cotton blended yarn. The allegation of the Revenue is that the appellant has not provided the details of the waste arising during the manufacturing of cotton blended yarn. Therefore, the appellant is liable to pay duty on whole of the waste. The said analogy of the Revenue is not correct. If the case is so, then the Standard Input-Output Norms have to play the role and as per the said the Standard Input-Output Norms, for manuf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
