9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8% adv.). 3. Apart from the manufacture of POY and texturised yarn as mentioned above, the appellants also buy POY from outside and subject the same to the process of texturising alone in their factory. In respect of this quantity of texturised yarn the appellants claimed concessional rate of Basic Excess Duty @ 8% adv. in terms of Sl. No. 4 of Notification No. 29/2004-C.E., dated 9-7-2004, on the ground that appellants do not have facilities for manufacture of organic polymers by polymerization or chemical transformation of natural polymers. 4. The appellants vide their letter dated 18-4-2005 intimated the Central Excise department about their eligibility to concessional rate of duty at 8% adv. vide Sl. 5A of Notification No. 29/2004-C.E., dated 9-7-2004 for the texturised yarn manufactured from POY procured from outside. 5. After getting the details of process of manufacture and some further correspondence, appellants were issued with show cause notice on 12-4-2006 demanding duty on the texturised yarn manufactured out of POY procured from outside which culminated into the impugned order confirming the duty demand of Rs. 2,36,59,198/- for the period from 1-4-2005 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cretary, TRU issued at the time of the introduction of Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., dated 9-7-2004 which had exactly the same explanation had this to say about duty structure on man-made filament yarns. "4.8.1. The duty structure has been completed revised. There will be mandatory duty only on manmade fibres. The mandatory duty will be as under : (a) 24% on polyester filament yarn (including textured yarn) (b) 16% on all other filament yarns (including textured yarn) and man made fibres. However, when these duty paid fibres and filament yarns are subjected to any processing in a unit which has not made the basic filament yarn (including textured yarn) or the fibre, there will be an optional exemption. The existing duty of 16% on polyester filament above 750 deniers will also continue." 9. According to Shri Sridharan, this supports his contention that if the yarn is procured from outside and subjected to any process other than texturising by a unit which has not manufactured the basic filament yarn including texturised yarn exemption had been extended. According to him the explanation given in the Notification and extracted above extends the benefit to the appellants since th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble for the benefit of above said notification. I find that the assessee has either knowingly not correctly understood the meaning of explanation given in the notification or misinterpreted the meaning of explanation of above said notification to avail the benefit of the notification. 11.6 I further find that assessee is manufacturing filament yarns of Chapter 54 from the polymer chips (PET chips) procured from out side. This fact is not also disputed by the assessee. It is further found that the raw material used for manufacture of these polymer chips (PET chips) are PTA (Pure Terephthalic Acid) or DMT (Dimethylester of Terephthalic Acid) and MEG (Mono Ethylene Glycol). It is noticed from the Chapter 29 of the first Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 that all these raw material viz. PTA, DMT and MEG are Organic Chemicals. Hence, it is crystal clear that the polymer chips are organic polymers. Since, the assessee has manufactured the filaments from the organic polymers (PET Chips) which are produced by (a) polymerization of organic monomers, or (b) chemical transformation of natural organic polymers and they have the facilities in their factory (including plant and eq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f organic polymers. The Commissioner has relied upon the dictionary meaning to explain how the appropriate meaning for the word "of" in the explanation is made from. We agree with this view taken by the Commissioner. We are unable to accept the contention of the appellants that only when the manufacturer has the facility to manufacture the filaments of organic polymers and organic polymers, he will get excluded. We are also unable to agree with the view that the finding of the Commissioner has the effect of rendering the explanation itself redundant. To support this view appellants submitted that all the manufacturers otherwise covered by the notification would become ineligible if this explanation is accepted. In support of this contention no details have been provided by the appellants. Appellants have not cited a single instance where the manufacturers were availing such a benefit would become ineligible if this explanation is accepted. It is only a general statement. In any case we are not required to look into what is happening all over the country and what is happening to all the manufacturers but interpret the notification according to the words and terms used therein and ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
