2005 (12) TMI 399

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the Appellant. Shri Vimlesh Kumar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - As per facts on record, the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of spun yarn falling under Chapters 52, 54 and 55 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were paying duty on the said yarn at spindle stage. Thereafter, various processes like bleaching, dyeing or mercerising ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d by the appellate authority. Hence the present appeal. 3. We have hard Shri Prakash Shah, learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri Vimlesh Kumar, learned SDR for the Revenue. 4. The appellant's contention is that the activity of dyeing was inserted as manufacturing process for the first time by way of Chapter Notes w.e.f. 16-3-1995 and prior to the said date, it cannot be held ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... credit in respect of such duty paid by them and have wrongly confirmed duty on the dyed yarn for the second time. After hearing the learned DR, we find that by addition of Chapter Note 2 to Chapter 52, process of dyeing was held as amounting to manufacture. Accordingly, for the period after 16-3-1995, the duty demand confirmed in respect of dyed yarn has to be upheld. However, the duty already pa....