TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Upholds Decision on Duty Exemption for Unprocessed Fabric</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JALANDHAR Versus SHITAL INTERNATIONAL</h3> COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JALANDHAR Versus SHITAL INTERNATIONAL - 2005 (180) E.L.T. 411 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:Challenge to order dropping duty demand against the respondents for knitted pile fabric clearance.Analysis:The appeal concerns the challenge by the Revenue against the order-in-original dropping duty demand for knitted pile fabric clearance. The respondents are involved in manufacturing knitted fabric of man-made textile material, long pile fabric, knitted hosiery cloth of cotton, and hosiery goods. The Revenue alleged that the respondents cleared knitted pile fabric as knitted cloth without duty payment. However, the respondents argued that their process did not amount to manufacture as defined in the relevant chapter and was exempt from duty under specific notifications.The Commissioner concluded that the knitted pile fabric cleared by the respondents was unprocessed and exempt from duty. The Revenue argued that the processes undertaken by the respondents constituted manufacture and cited legal precedents. The respondents contended that their processes did not amount to manufacture and that previous duty payment did not prevent them from claiming exemption. The Tribunal analyzed the manufacturing processes undertaken by the respondents and compared them to the definition of manufacture in the relevant chapter.The Tribunal found that the processes carried out by the respondents did not meet the criteria for manufacture as defined in the chapter. The Tribunal cited legal precedents to support this conclusion. The Revenue's argument that the processes constituted manufacture was rejected as the processes did not align with the definition provided in the chapter. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of back coating and drying, determining that these processes did not amount to manufacture as per the relevant regulations.The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's reliance on specific legal cases and circulars, emphasizing that the processes undertaken by the respondents did not meet the requirements for duty imposition. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to drop the duty demand against the respondents, noting that previous duty payment did not prevent the respondents from claiming exemption when the processes did not constitute manufacture. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed for lack of merit.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, legal precedents cited, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the decision to uphold the dropping of duty demand against the respondents.
TaxTMI 