2001 (7) TMI 807

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of confiscation of plant, building and machinery as detailed in the annexure. Vimla Fashion Pvt. Ltd., Bijaykumar D. Agarwal and Shiva Exports are absent and unrepresented, and requested for adjournment on the ground that their advocate has to attend Court at Navsari. No vakalatnama has been filed. Copy of some railway ticket is enclosed but this does not contain anyone's name. We therefore declined to adjourn. 2. The delay of 20 days in filing the appeal of Radhey Shyam Garg is condoned. 3  We are concerned in these applications with the scope of the exemption contained in Notification 34/94 to textured yarn manufactured out of filament yarn imported under the duty exemption scheme of the 1992-97 Policy, which is subject t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ollector having jurisdiction over him of receipt of the filament yarn and required to maintain records of the movement of the yarn. He is also required to undertake to advise the Assistant Collector having jurisdiction over the person carrying out the texturing of the discharge of the yarn to that manufacturer. The person who textures the yarn will also keep records. The exporter must submit the proof of export within six months of the date of import. 5. It is the contention of the counsel that by this procedure, the department itself recognises that the duty on the textured yarn has to be paid, not by the processor but by the importer and exporter of the yarn. The trade notice itself says this to be the case. It does not require th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sed on these processors and their partners and employees. 8. Penalty has been imposed under Rule 209A on Shivam Exports and Vimla Fashion Pvt. Ltd. for their failure to export the yarn. The contentions in their stay applications are common. It is that they never supplied the yarn. They suggest, without saying so categorically that the yarn that they imported was not supplied to the processor for texturing. There is a further contention that the processed yarn was not received back. These contentions are mutually contradictory. The processors all accept that that they received the yarn from these persons. There is no dispute that they filed the prescribed in the trade notice and various intimations have been furnished by these partie....