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 duty demand on cotton fabrics for unlicensed mercerising process</h1> <h3>MAHALAKSHMI DYEING & PRINTING MILLS Versus CCE., COIMBATORE</h3> The Tribunal dismissed the appeal against the order confiscating cotton fabrics and imposing duty under Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants were ... Cotton fabrics - Exemption - Aid of power Issues:1. Confiscation of cotton fabrics and demand of duty under Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Alleged undertaking of mercerising process without Central Excise license.3. Claim of benefit under Notification No. 130/82 and Notification No. 253/82.4. Discrepancy between the processes undertaken and the exemptions claimed.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed against an order confiscating cotton fabrics and imposing duty under Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Collector ordered the confiscation of cotton fabrics and confirmed a duty demand on fabrics cleared during a specific period. A penalty was also imposed on the appellants under relevant rules.2. The appellants were accused of undertaking the mercerising process without a Central Excise license. The officers found that mercerising was done with the aid of power, and a statement from the partner of the appellants' firm admitted the absence of a license. A show-cause notice was issued, leading to the impugned order.3. The appellants argued that they were not mercerising cloth but dyeing it without the aid of power, claiming entitlement to benefits under Notification No. 130/82 and Notification No. 253/82. They contended that their processing unit did not have a mercerising range and that the exemption should apply to their dyeing process.4. The respondent's officers confirmed that the appellants were engaged in various processes, including mercerising, starching, stentering, calendering, and folding with the aid of power. Statements from customers supported these claims. It was established that the appellants did not qualify for the exemptions under the mentioned notifications due to the processes undertaken beyond the scope of the exemptions.5. The Tribunal found no error in the impugned order, dismissing the appeal based on the established facts regarding the mercerising process undertaken by the appellants with the aid of power, contrary to the claimed exemptions. The statements and evidence presented supported the respondent's findings, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
