TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (2) TMI 842
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has been dismissed. The Adjudicating authority by his order dated 30th June, 2004 had confirmed the demand of Rs. 8,80,370/- against the appellants along with interest thereon and penalty of equal amount. 3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of knitted fabrics of cotton classifiable under Chapter Sub-heading 6001.11 and 6002.92, and articles of apparel knitted or crocheted all sorts classifiable under Chapter Sub-heading 6102.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are also manufacturing accessories classifiable under Chapter Sub-heading No. 6202.00 of the Schedule to the said Act. 4. The appellants had purchased duty paid yarn and used the same for manufacturing knitted or crocheted fabrics classifiable unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....result to the appellants, except in relation to the penalty. 5. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants, while fairly conceding that the main issue which is sought to be raised by the appellants stands concluded by the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the appellants' own case in appeal Nos. 251 & 252 of 2004 disposed off by the Tribunal's Final Order Nos. 1239-1240/2004-NB(A) dated 11-11-2004 [2005 (180) E.L.T. 429 (Tribunal)] and the said matter is presently before the Apex Court, did not press for the same point in this case, while reserving the right of the appellants to raise the same point in case the appellants happen to take the matter before the Hon'ble Apex Court. 6. Undoubtedly, the main issue which arises....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emption once it is not in dispute that the statutory liability in relation to the duty on the input has been cleared by the assessee. He further submitted that the fact that the duty liability in relation to the inputs having been cleared by the appellants is not being in dispute, mere delay in clearance of that liability cannot come in the way of availing the benefit under the said notification as the notification on the face of it nowhere provides that such duty should be cleared prior to claiming the benefit. 8. Learned D.R. on the other hand drawing our attention to the decision in the matter of CCE, Mumbai-I v. Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd., reported in 2007 (215) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), State of Jharkhand v. Ambay Cements and Eagle F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the same, however, they had paid the same on the end product, it cannot be said that they could not ordinarily have complied with the requirement of payment of duty prior to utilization of the product. It was also observed "that once the Tribunal took the view that they were liable to pay the duty on intermediate product and they would have been entitled to the benefit of the notification had they met with the requirement of Rule 56A, the proper course was to permit them to do so rather than denying to them the benefit on the technical ground that the point of time when they could have done so had elapsed and they could not be permitted to comply with Rule 56A after that stage had passed." The Apex Court in Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntion made on behalf of the respondents. In Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. case the Apex Court had clearly held that "when we come to the Exemption Notification No. 14/2002-C.E., the requirement was that exemption on grey fabrics was admissible subject to the assessee paying duty on yarn before claiming exemption and subject to the assessee not claiming CENVAT credit before claiming the exemption. Question of exemption from payment of duty on grey fabrics arose on satisfaction of the said two conditions. In this case, payment of duty on yarn on deferred basis took place before clearance of grey fabrics on which exemption was claimed. Therefore, payment was made before the stage of exemption. Similarly, on payment of duty on the input the ass....