TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 741
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Respondent. ORDER After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri K.I. Vyas, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant and Shri I. Ahmed, ld. SDR, appearing for the Revenue, we find that the appellant is a 100% EOU. They cleared the rejects of textured/twisted yarn and waste of yarn in Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) during the period June, 2001 to September, 2001. As per the Revenue, such clearanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re Commissioner (Appeals). As per the observations made by Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant accepted their duty liability and did not dispute the same. However, they contended that this is not a case of imposition of penalty inasmuch as there was no wilful suppression on their part to evade payment of duty and the demand had arisen due to change in EXIM Policy. The said plea of the appellant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-2008, vide which, by following the Tribunal's decision in the case of Amitex Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd., the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected. 5. Countering the arguments. ld. SDR submits that the duty was never challenged by Commissioner (Appeals), as is clear from the observations made by the appellate authority. As such, he submits that the appellants are precluded from challenging the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal last to raise the ground challenging confirmation of duty. We note that the issue stand decided in the case of Amitex Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. referred supra. The said decision of the Tribunal stand followed subsequently in number of other decisions. Reference to one such judgment can be made in the case of C.C.E. v. Mudra Texturising Pvt. Ltd. - 2009 (235) E.L.T. 674 (Tri.-Ahmd.). The appeal fi....