9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r-in-appeal no. BR/293/Th-I/2012 dated 14th November 2012] of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone - I, has led to bringing the present dispute before us. 2. Narrating the contours of the dispute, Learned Counsel for appellant submitted that the continuity of the dispute after 2nd December 2016 is attributable only to unforeseen error inasmuch as the appeal had been listed along with others, viz., that of M/s Shreekar Polyester Pvt Ltd [excise appeal no. 86154/13-MUM] and M/s Raj Synthetics [excise appeal no. 3278/05 along with appeal no. E/CO/350/06], that had arisen in identical circumstances but, in the order of the Tribunal disposing those off, the reliefs sought in their appeal had not been dealt with. She contended that, as the same circumstances inform this dispute, the reasoning in that decision [final order no. A/94361-94364/16/EB dated 2nd December 2016] should apply here. 3. Learned Authorized Representative submitted that the facts differed in the present matter inasmuch as the finished goods had not been manufactured from duty paid 'textured yarn' or 'draw-twisted yarn' but from 'twisted yarn' emerging as an intermediate product on which duty liabili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... convenience is excluded from levy at each of the stages subject to duty being paid at some stage by the manufacturer and subject to procedure as spelt out in rule 16A, rule 16B and rule 16C of Central Excise Act, 1944. In such circumstances, a separate notification by the Central Government, in concord with tax policy formulation, must be presumed to have a separate intent so as not to be superfluous. Hence, subject to condition that yarn emerging therefrom is exempted from duty, it is only required that the finished goods should have been manufactured either out of duty paid 'textured yarn' or 'twisted yarn' and that CENVAT Credit on such inputs had not been availed. It is not the case of Revenue that credit had been availed. 6. In identical circumstances, it has been held by the Tribunal in re Shreekar Polyester Pvt Ltd that '4. ....... From the above condition 31(i), it can be seen that the dyed yarn is concessionally exempted if manufactured out of texturized yarn on which duty of Excise was paid. In the fact of the present case, the Dyed Polyester Filament Yarn was manufactured out of duty paid texturised yarn. Though after purchase the duty paid texturised yarn, it is fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an be safely concluded that 'A' has been used in manufacture of 'C'. Admittedly, 'A' is duty paid, and no credit has been availed by the appellant. That being so, an inevitable conclusion would be that the condition of notification stand satisfied by the appellant. 5. We also note that an identical condition in Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. was the subject matter of the Tribunal's decision in case of Precot Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore, 2005 (183) E.L.T. 407 (Tri.-Bang.). Tribunal while dealing with the said issue, has held in favour of the assessee by observing as under : "6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. The point to be decided in this case is whether the appellant is entitled to claim exemption under Sl. No. 97 in respect of the dyed yarn manufactured out of the doubled yarn which availed complete exemption from duty. The decision on this point involves the interpretation of the following expression used in condition 19(ii) of the Notification No. 6/2002 :- "If manufactured out of yarn on which appropriate duty of excise has already been paid." It is true that the dyed yarn was manufactured out of the doubled yarn on which no duty was paid. But it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consequential relief to the appellants." In the case of Precot Mills Ltd. (supra) this Tribunal decided the identical issue the same has reproduced below:- "5. The Revenue relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Vadodara v. Dhiren Chemical Industries [2002 (139) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] and maintained that the doubled yarn did not suffer any duty and hence, the benefit of Notification No. 6/2002 under Sl. No. 97 will not be applicable to the dyed yarn which is converted from doubled yarn. While giving comments on the appeal, the Revenue has observed that the appellants contention that if the duty is paid at the doubling stage, they would be eligible for the CENVAT Credit of the same at the dyeing stage and in effect, it would be revenue neutral appears to be correct. 6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. The point to be decided in this case is whether the appellant is entitled to claim exemption under Sl. No. 97 in respect of the dyed yarn manufactured out of the doubled yarn which availed complete exemption from duty. The decision on this point involves the interpretation of the following expression used in condition 19 (ii) of the Notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
