9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant on 21.12.1996. 2. The first grievance of the appellant is related to excess quantity found during the search. The Ld. Counsel Sh. Amal Dave submits that a total sum of 44,497.250 Kgs of various type of yarn was recovered, out of it 30,354.700 Kgs yarn was seized by the Textile Departments for violation of Textile Laws. The remaining yarn of 14,123 Kgs was released on the redemption fine of Rs. 10,00,000/- + Rs. 2,00,000/- on remanded, total Rs. 12,00,000/-. 3. Ld. Counsel assailed the levy of the redemption fine. 4. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel that goods were unfinished, unpacked and were at the factory floor. 5. After hearing the rival submissions, we are of the view that the Tribunal in the case of Ambey Labor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt, yarn was received and was returned in the Hank form. He submits that being a job worker, no duty liability lies with the appellant. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Department, Sh. L. Patra submits that the yarn was returned in the form of the Cones. 8. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that the appellant is a job worker. Primary duty payment liability lies with the job worker unless the principal manufacturer had taken over the liability. In the present case, the principal had not taken over the liability, so the appellant is liable to pay the duty liability of Rs. 40,32,222/-. This ground is rejected. 9. Next grievance of the appellant is pertaining to the duty demand of Rs. 2,83,421/- o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise invoices were for such dispatches made by them and that the said goods were removed by them without payment of Central Excise duty. When it is so, then we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order, especially when no contradictory facts/ evidecne has been brought to the notice of the Bench. Hence, this demand is hereby sustained. This ground is dismissed. 12. Similarly, another grievance is for Rs. 2,14,853/-. In this case also the internal gate passes No. 1603 and 1604 were used for the removal of goods from the factory premises. Goods were removed from the factory without payment of duty through the gate passes. When it is so, then we decline to interfere with the impugned order. The said demand is also confirme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
