TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 1020
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er Pradip Kumar Das: The applicant is a job worker of M/s. Coats Viyella India Ltd. (CVIL, in short). They received Grey Cotton Fabrics from CVIL and processed the same in the nature of bleaching, padding and stentering and thereafter processed fabrics were returned back to the principal CVIL under Rule 96D of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 without payment of duty. There is a demand of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was changed at their hands. In fact, there was no change of identity of the cotton fabrics and no distinct commodity emerged after the processing of the fabrics at their end. At any event, the process of LDPE/HEPE coating was undertaken at the premises of CVIL. Hence, there is no basis for the demand of duty. He further submits that the Hon'ble Madras High Court in this matter held that the show-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not in consonance with the Tariff Heading. 4. After considering the submissions of both sides, we find that sub-rule (5) of Rule 96D provides that if cotton fabrics after being processed are removed without payment of duty to one or more factories for further processing or to the originating factory, such removal shall be subject to and in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (3). It is se....