2006 (11) TMI 383

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... : Shri Uma Shankar, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri K.I. Vyas, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President]. -  All the respondents in the above appeals are traders having shops, who purchase grey fabrics and get them processed by processors and then sell them from their premises. Processed fabrics were seized from each of the respondents on the ground....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e the adjudication orders holding that the respondents are not the manufacturers as they are only suppliers of grey fabrics and the processor is the manufacturer in the light of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Ujjagar Prints v. UOI [Narne Tulaman Manufacturers], 1988 (38) E.L.T. 566 (S.C.) = (1989 (20) ECR 129 (S.C.). He, therefore, set aside the confiscation and duty demand and penalty, he....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in the light of the Tribunal's order in the case of Vadilal Embroidery Unit v. CCE, Mumbai-II [2001 (131) E.L.T. 193 (Tri-Mumbai)], wherein the Tribunal has held that Notification No. 27/92 is relevant only for application or otherwise of Rule 174 and has nothing to do with the payment of duty, and the decision in the case of CCE, Surat v. Kalpana Silk Mills [2001 (134) E.L.T. 373 (Tri.-Mumbai)],....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to penalty under the provisions of Rule 173Q/209A as they have dealt with the goods (processed fabrics) with the knowledge that such goods were liable to confiscation for the reason that they had been cleared by the processors without payment of duty. We, therefore, hold that the respondents herein are liable to penalty and restore the adjudication orders in so far as they relate to imposition of ....