TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notification No. 6/2002 dated 1-3-2002, Sl. No. 94 and condition No. 16. There is no dispute on this point. The doubled yarn is returned to their factory for dyeing. The dyed yarn is cleared on payment of duty @ Rs. 2.50 per Kg by availing the same exemption Notification No. 6/2002 dated 1-3-2002, vide Sl. No. 97 read with condition 19 of the Notification. The extract of Sl. No. 97 and condition 19 is given below : "Notification No. 6/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2002 97 51.06, Dyed, printed, bleached or mercerized yarn (containing synthetic or artificial staple fibres), whether single, multiple (folded, cabled or air-mingled, manufactured in a factory which does not have the facilities (including plant and equipment) for p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the appropriate duty of excise under the First Schedule, the special duty of excise levaible under the Second Schedule, or as the case may be, the additional duty levaible under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 should have been already paid. According to the Revenue, when the doubled yarn is cleared, it is cleared at nil rate of duty. Hence, the condition 19(ii) is not fulfilled. As the condition 19(ii) is not fulfilled, the dyed yarn is not entitled for exemption under Sl. No. 97 in Notification No. 6/2002 dated 1-3-2002. Therefore, the appellant is liable to pay differential duty. The appellants contend that when the single yarn is manufactured in their factory and cleared, the duty was paid. Only at the doubling stage, exemption under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otes or Interpretive Rules. The appellants relied on Para 24 of the decision in the case of CCE, v. Coats Viyella (India) Ltd. - 2001 (128) E.L.T. 434 (T) They further contended that language of the Notification in terms of Sl. No. 94 and 97 and condition No. 16 and No. 19 would make it clear that once the duty has been paid on the single yarn, appropriate duty has been paid on the yarn, which is subject to further process. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
