Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. H.B. Wooltex (P) Ltd vs Cce, Gurgaon on 23 January, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST BLOCK NO. 2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI COURT -II EXCISE APPEAL No. 2182 OF 2006-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 99/GRM/RTK/2006 dated 27.03.2006 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Gurgaon] For approval and signature: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? M/s. H.B. Wooltex (P) Ltd., Appellants Vs. CCE, Gurgaon Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate, Shri B.S. Suhag, DR, for the respondent, Coram:
Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President Date of Hearing: 23.1.2008 FINAL ORDER NO._________________ dated __________ Per S.S. Kang:
Heard both sides.
2. Appellants filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,31,377/- and imposed penalty.
3. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants on the ground that they were clearing yarn on cones which is dutiable under the guise of yarn on plain-reel hanks which is exempted. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings, however, on appeal filed by the Revenue the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand and imposed penalties.
4. The contention of the appellants is that the demand is raised on the ground that the appellants cleared the yearn on cones to M/s. Lakshmi Trading Co. and in the invoices it has been shown yarn in plain-reel hanks. Contention is that Shri Subhash Yadav of Lakshmi Trading Co. in his statement specifically mentioned that they are receiving both type of yarn from various mills. There is no evidence on record to show that yarn on cones received by Lakshmi Trading Co. is cleared by the appellants. The appellants are clearing both type of yarn to various customers and, where yarn is cleared on cones appropriate duty has been paid. As there is no evidence on record to show that the appellants cleared yarn on cones under the guise of plain-reel hanks, demand is not sustainable.
5. I have gone through show cause notice. I find that there was an allegation that whatever received by Lakshmi Trading Co. on various dates was yarn on cones whereas the appellants shown clearance as yarn on hanks without payment of duty. The Revenue has not seized the invoices under which yarn was received by Lakshmi Trading Co. Accountant of Lakshmi Trading Co. in his statement submitted that they were receiving yarn on cones and on hanks from various mills. As there is no evidence on record that yarn on cones received by Lakshmi Trading Co. is cleared by the appellants, the demand is not sustainable. Hence, the same is set aside. In view of above appeal is allowed.
(Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.) (S.S. KANG) VICE PRESIDENT Dated 28th January, 2008 RK