Commissioner drops duty demand on grey fabrics; Tribunal upholds exemption. Cess & special duty dismissed; cotton yarn duty remanded.

The Commissioner's demand of duty on grey fabrics cleared to the domestic tariff area was dropped based on an exemption for finished products made from raw materials produced in India. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing the actual manufacturing process. The demand of cess under the Textiles Committee Act was dismissed due to lack of evidence that the machinery was not imported. The demand of special additional customs duty on imported capital goods was rejected as goods imported before the duty's introduction were not liable. Regarding the duty on cotton yarn, the matter was remanded for the appellant to establish duty payment.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Demand of duty on grey fabrics cleared to the domestic tariff area.
2. Demand of cess under the Textiles Committee Act, 1963.
3. Demand of special additional customs duty on imported capital goods.
4. Demand of duty on cotton yarn.

Summary:

1. Demand of duty on grey fabrics cleared to the domestic tariff area:
The Commissioner dropped the demand of Rs. 1,82,89,599/- based on Notification 8/97, which exempts finished products made from raw materials produced or manufactured in India. The department's appeal contended that polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), used in the sizing mixture for grey fabrics, was imported and thus violated the exemption conditions. The Commissioner, however, found that PVA was a consumable, not a raw material, based on Board's Circular No. 389/22/98 and evidence provided by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that the actual manufacturing process should be considered, not hypothetical alternatives. The Board's circular, binding on the Commissioner, clarified that the use of imported consumables does not negate the exemption.

2. Demand of cess under the Textiles Committee Act, 1963:
The Commissioner demanded cess on textile machinery, which the appellant contended was imported and thus not subject to cess under the Act. The Tribunal found that the show cause notice itself indicated the machinery was imported, and the Commissioner's demand could not be sustained without evidence to the contrary.

3. Demand of special additional customs duty on imported capital goods:
The Commissioner demanded special additional customs duty on goods imported in 1993, arguing that duty is payable on the date of removal from the bonded warehouse. The Tribunal, referencing the decision in NGEF v. CCE and a trade notice, held that goods imported before the duty's introduction are not liable for it upon later removal from the warehouse. Thus, the demand lacked legal authority.

4. Demand of duty on cotton yarn:
The Commissioner demanded Rs. 75,652/- on cotton yarn, alleging it was received without duty payment for export manufacturing but not used as intended. The appellant claimed the yarn was duty-paid, supported by a letter from the jurisdictional Superintendent. The Tribunal found the letter insufficient as evidence but remanded the matter to the Commissioner to allow the assessee to establish duty payment.

Disposition:
The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with specific remand instructions for the duty on cotton yarn issue.

---