TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (2) TMI 260
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te, for the Respondent. [Judgment per: Ashutosh Mohunta, J.]. - The Revenue has impugned the order dated 4-2-2005 [2005 (184) E.L.T. 102 (Tri.-Del.)], passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Appellate Tribunal') vide which the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in favour of the respondent was upheld and the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had not paid the proper and correct duty and also the fact that they did not maintain separate records showing that goods cleared by them in DTA were not manufactured out of imported cotton but from indigenous raw material, hence they have contravened the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act read with Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962 and have rendered themselves liable for pena....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... therefore, the manufacturer is liable to discharge the duty as provided under Notification No. 8/97, dated 1-3-1997 and not under Notification No. 2/95, dated 4-1-1995. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Revenue filed appeal before the Appellate Tribunal which has dismissed the same. It is against the aforesaid order that the present appeal has been filed. 5. Counsel for the Revenue has c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the party". 6. As far as first question is concerned this point was not even argued before the Appellate Tribunal. Moreover, evidence had been led by the respondent which showed that small quantity of only 317.520 kgs. of yarn was manufactured out of the imported raw material and hence it cannot be said that the respondent has tried to gain any undue advantage. 7. As far second question is co....