2009 (9) TMI 791

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....are liable to duty on square mtr. basis. The applicant, on the basis of permission to remove the non duty paid grey fabric for processing, has sent for job work to M/s. Uniworth Textiles Ltd., Butibori, Nagpur and received back the processed material in terms of procedure prescribed in para 4.7.02 of the EXIM Policy. During the period from 22-8-2002 to 31-7-2004, the applicant has removed a total quantity of approximately 27,96,000 sq. mtr. of grey fabric and received back approximately 24,79,000 sq. mtr. and thus there was a shortage of 3,17,000 approximately sq. mtr. The applicant has claimed that they have received the entire processed fabric and the shrinkage was around 3% in terms of linear mtr. which is within the permissible limit. H....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....linear side can be different from the width side and normally shrinkage on the width side is more. He submits that this report has not been properly appreciated by the Commissioner. He also submits that the applicant is facing financial hardship and in support of the same he produces fax copies of the balance sheet for the year ending 31-3-2009. According to the balance sheet the loss for the year ending 31-3-2009 before taxation is around Rs. 8 crores and loss after taxation is around Rs. 8.1 crores as against a sales turnover of Rs. 51 crores approximately. 4. Learned DR submits that the duty liability on the fabrics is based on square meter. The applicant having imported/procured duty free raw materials, was under obligation for the p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s given by and deposits made by the applicant which is around Rs. 11 crores. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions from both sides. As already noted, the matter is before the Tribunal for the second time. The appellant was given ample opportunity to explain their case before the Commissioner by the remand order dated 27-6-2008. We find that the applicant has not, in spite of opportunity given, explained satisfactorily high percentage of shrinkage claimed on the width side. Prima-facie, the job work challans relied upon by the applicant indicated the shrinkage about 3% only in linear mtr. and the same have been allowed by the Commissioner. However, the applicant, in spite of ample opportunity given by us also, was not able to gi....