Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Cce vs Maikal Fibres Ltd. on 1 November, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001(73)ECC543
ORDER P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)
1. This order will dispose of two appeals Nos. 2332 & 2333/2000-D filed by the Revenue against the common Order-in-Appeals dated 28.4.2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Bhopal, vide which he had modified the Order-in-Original of the Asst. Commissioner raising the demand for the payment of duty on the Cotton Yarn, from the Respondents.
2. The facts giving raise to these appeals briefly are as under:
The appellants are 100% EOU and are manufacturing Cotton Yarn of Chapter 52 of CETA '85. They cleared certain quantity of Cotton Yam in D.T.A. Sale, during the disputed period without payment of appropriate duty. Accordingly, they were served with Show Cause Notice vide which they were called upon to pay duty amount demanded. After getting reply to those notices, wherein respondents denial their liability to pay duty as demanded. The Asst. Commissioner, however, confirmed the demand on them vide Order-in-Original dt. 24.9.98. This order of the Asst. Commissioner was challenged by the Respondents before the Commissioner (Appeals) who partly allowed their appeal and set aside the penalty and additional duty imposed on them by the Asst. Commissioner by extending benefit of Notfn. No. 55/91-CE dt. 25.7.1991 read with Board Circular No. 384/17/98-CEX dated 20.3.98, to them.
3. Revenue has come up with an appeal against the impugned Order-in-Appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals).
4. We have heard both the sides.
5. Ld. JDR, Shri Ravinder Babu has questioned the correctness of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that since the Cotton Yarn had been cleared in D.T.S. Sales, the additional duty was payable by the Respondents even if they were accepted to be 100% E.O.U. on the other hand, Ld. consultant, Shri J.M. Sharma for the Respondents while refuting this contention of the Ld. JDR, has contended that benefit of Notfn. No. 55/91-CE dt. 25.7.91 had rightly been extended to the Respondents and that the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is perfectly correct.
6. We have gone through the record and the facts are not at all in dispute. Admittedly, the Respondents are 100% E.O.U. The Cotton Yarn was cleared by them during the period in question in D.T.S. Sale. The perusal of the Notification No. 55/91-CE dt. 25.7.91 was that the Central Government had exempted the excisable goods produced by 100% E.O.U. manufacturer from payment of additional duty. The benefit of Notification has been rightly extended to the Respondents by the Commissioner (Appeals). Even the Board Circular No. 384/17/98-CEX dt. 20.3.98 is also quite clear and supports the case of the Respondents for claiming benefit of exemption Notification No. 55/91-CE. The Revenue is undoubtedly bound, by this Circular and cannot be legally permitted to go against its spirit. Therefore the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the benefit of Notfn. No. 55/91-CE and the above referred Board Circular to the respondents is perfectly valid and does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
7. In the light of the above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal of the Revenue and the same is dismissed.