TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch was found absent in the case of the appellant s product. Rejecting the contention of the appellant that it had earlier intimated to the department regarding manufacturing of woven fabrics of Synthetic Filament Yarn falling under Chapter 5406 vide its letter dated 29th April 2004 and the certificate issued by the buyers concerning use of woven fabrics for industrial application, he opined that nowhere appellant had pleaded that Synthetic Woven Fabrics were intended for industrial purpose and basing on the statement of witness, primarily on the statement of proprietor Mr. Hrishikesh Mimani that they had mistakenly classified the product under Chapter 59 instead of Chapter 54, he confirmed the findings in the Order-in-Original that SSI exem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Sanjay Hasija, Superintendent, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER PER: DR. SUVENDU KUMAR PATI Denial of SSI exemption to the appellant in confirming change of classification of the products by the Commissioner (Appeals) in appeal No. E/1378/2011 is assailed in this appeal. 2. Facts of the case that has given rise to the present appeal is as follows. 2.1 Appellant was dealing in textile fabrics used for industrial applications such as filtration purpose. The manufacturing of goods were made through job worker and appellant was clearing the same by availing exemption benefit available for SSI units under Chapter Heading ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s meant for industrial and technical use since barring cotton yarn and silk yarn, all others yarn are synthetic or artificial and not meant for clothing purposes. His findings were based on the erroneous interpretation of the Board's Circular No. 48/2/97-CX dated 17.04.1997 as by no stench of imagination, it can be inferred that because appellant had not included fabric covered under Chapter 59 in their registration, which was done subsequent to these clearance of products under dispute, it was not entitled to the benefits of SSI exemption available for goods cleared under Chapter 59.11. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant had produced buyers certificate before the lower Authorities to justify that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. In response to such submissions, learned Authorised Representative for the respondent-department Shri Sanjay Hasija, Superintendent supported the reasoning and rationality of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and in citing the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court passed in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Mumbai v. Surbhit Impex Pvt. Ltd. reported in [2012 (286) ELT 500] and in the case of M/s Anuradha Processors v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane reported in 2007 (213) ELT 350 (Tri.-Mumbai) that in a similar dispute of classification, specially in M/s Anuradha Processors case the Tribunal itself had clarified the processed fabric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r-in-Original that SSI exemption was not available to the appellant for which appropriate duty demand along with interest was made. Further, learned Commissioner (Appeals) had also confirmed the invocation of extended period and imposition of equivalent penalty by holding that since proprietor had admitted to have misdeclared the product, there was ill intention on the part of the appellant to evade duty. 5.1 As appears from the Chapter note to Heading 59.11, the product under dispute should be meant primarily for technical use and in few cases, for industrial uses and that is the final stage after which no further processing was suppressed to be done to make the product fit for technical use, since it is last Chapter Headin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tune of ₹ 5,53,293/- + thereby substantially reduced the duty liability. 5.3 Be that as it may, the crux of the issue lies in the fact of invocation of extended period for raising duty demand for the period from April, 2003 to July, 2004. Admittedly show-cause notice was issued on 17.04.2006 which was not within the normal period prescribed at the relevant time and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) had confirmed the justification of invocation of extended period by observing that proprietor had admitted that they had misclassified the product and therefore a clear case of suppression was established against the appellant, contrary to his own observation and acknowledgement in the order itself that vide its letter dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
