2007 (6) TMI 380

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uhag, DRs, for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.V. Sairam, Member (T)]. - This is an appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Ludhiana, dated 23-12-2004. In the impugned order, the Commissioner, while reiterating the ratio of decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir vide Writ Petition No. 114 of 1995 had discharged th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tc. as the respondent did not pay a farthing towards the differential duty on the value as determined at the time of removal of goods from their factory premises. It was observed that in these notices that the noticee was required to discharge its duty liability in respect of yarn manufactured by him only at the time of removal of goods on the assessable value of the goods so determined in terms o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-3-1995. Through this last amendment dated 18-5-1995, the exemption enjoyed by the respondent/assessee was denied. The addition of a proviso here made the respondent/assessee ineligible for exemption under Notification dated 16-3-1995 as "the clearances of yarn from a factory having facilities (including plant and equipment) for producing single yarn" were not extended with the said exemption. A C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d from November, 1994 to July, 1996 on the ground that the duty was not to be paid at single yarn stage. However, it was clarified that as the decision of the Hon'ble High Court had gone in favour of the Respondent as they were made eligible for exemption prior to 18-5-1995, what was challenged now was only in respect of those show cause notices which were issued covering the period subsequent to ....