TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (8) TMI 286
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 1985 from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon under Section 3 of the Act, subject to three conditions mentioned therein. For the sake of proper appreciation of the arguments of the learned Counsel, we reproduce the same below :- "(i) the polyester fibre is intended for use for the manufacture of fabrics containing more than 40 per cent but less than 70 per cent by weight of the said polyester fibre; (ii) the manufacturer produces evidence to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise to the effect that the said polyester fibre is intended for use under a programme, duly approved by the Textile Commissioner and an officer not below the rank of a Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Supply and Textiles (Department of Textile....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rred to in the notification, refer to the manufacturer of the fabrics who took polyester fibre for use in the manufacture of cheap variety of fabrics. After end use the certificate has not been produced by the said manufacturer the duty liability will devolves upon those manufacturers who took the fibres from the appellants herein. It was also submitted that the said plea is fortified by the procedure followed by the customers of the fibre namely fabric manufacturers by the order dated 19-11-1985 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Textile. In this connection, the learned Advocate has drawn our attention to clause 5 of the Textile Ministry's order which is reproduced below :- "Each mill, which proposes to start production unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e requisite certificate of end use of the said polyester fibre is not produced by the customer manufacturer to the A. C., Kota. Learned Advocate has also drawn attention to the finding of the Adjudicating Authority to the effect that it is the appellant who has sought and claimed exemption under this notification (para 6.2 of the impugned order). It is submitted by the learned Advocate that this finding of the Adjudicating Authority is contrary to the records as per application of the customer-manufacturer and as per procedure laid down by the Ministry of Textile given above. He further drew attention to the fact that procedure laid down by the Ministry of Textile indicates that if the A.C. of the Polyester fibre manufacturer is satisfied a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustomer-manufacturer it will be the responsibility of the appellants to pay duty. He, therefore, submits that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions. The short question, before us, in this appeal, is whether expression "manufacturer" used in the Notification No. 191/85-C.E. would mean the appellants herein or manufacturer of the fabrics who have purchased polyester fibre from the appellants. From the various instructions on the subject giving effect to this notification as pointed out by the learned Advocate before the Adjudicating Authority and reiterated before us and as set out above, there can be no manner of doubt that "manufacturer" referred to in the said notification will be the ....