TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1013X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Adjudicating Authority should have considered the defect PETs emanating in the course of their final manufactured product towards the SION fulfillment. It is also seen from the records that Note 2 was issued by the Committee after proper verification of the technical details furnished by the Appellant. This Note 2 cannot be treated as a new norm prescribed for the future manufacture only. This simply prescribes the norms for normal production which are being carried out by the Appellant all along. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority is in error in taking the stand that this Note 2 cannot be applied for the goods manufactured during the past period. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- So far as the Appellant s submissions on limitat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uantification, the Appellant is required to pay the interest - Appeal disposed off. - HON BLE MR. R. MURALIDHAR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And HON BLE MR. RAJEEV TANDON, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Mr. Arbind Baheti, CA for the Appellant Mr. P. K. Ghosh, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER PER R. MURALIDHAR: The Appellant is registered as Export Oriented Unit (EOU) engaged in manufacture of Polyethylene Terepthalate (PET) chips. The Appellant was allowed to procure duty free inputs from overseas or from indigenous sources. Show Cause Notice was issued to the Appellant on the ground that the usage of the inputs vis-a-vis manufacture of finished goods are not as per the Standard Input Output Norms described un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cifically draws our attention to Note 2 wherein, it has been specified that Diethylene Glycol usage may be increased or decreased in view of quantity of other ingredients. He also takes us through Page 37 of the today s Synopsis, wherein, the Technology Supplier has given these norms. He submits that based on the Technology supplier s letter, they had approached SION the Committee and after this the amendment by way of Note 2 was inserted in the SION. He further submits that though these facts were brought to the knowledge of the Adjudicating Authority, still he refused to consider the same on the ground that the Show Cause Notice was issued for prior period and the Note 2 was amended subsequently. In view of these submissions, he prays tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the SION norms to the effect that even the defective or scraped goods should be considered as part of the output. Accordingly, he prays that the present Appeal may be dismissed. 7. Heard both sides and perused the documents produced before us. 8. The facts are not disputed by both the sides. The entire issue is only on account of non-fulfillment of input output norms as per the allegation of the Department. The submission of the Appellant is that in the course of manufacture of PET even hypothetically speaking, no manufacture can produce 100% correct quality quantity of PET. Some percentage of the goods would be defective which can be exported. In their case such defect are less than 1% of the total manufactured goods which is well w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n these Returns have been considered by the Department for issue of the Show Cause Notice. Therefore, allegation of suppression does not sustain. The Department has committed a grave error by issuing the second Show Cause Notice once again invoking the extended period. 10. We are surprised that the Adjudicating Authority has relied on the Nizam Sugar Factory Larger Bench decision, after this LB was overturned by the Hon ble Supreme Court long ago. In view of these facts, we hold that the confirmed demands cannot sustain for the extended period in respect of the both Show Cause Notices. 11. For the confirmed demand in respect of the normal period, (March 2009 to October 2009), we are remanding the matter to the Adjudicating Authority t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
