2006 (11) TMI 58

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....p;[Order per : C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)]. - Heard both sides and perused record. 2.All these appeals raise a common question of law. Relevant facts are also identical. The impugned order is also common. Accordingly, they were taken up together and remain disposed of under this common order. 3.Heard both sides and perused record. 4.The assessees in appeal are all processors of fabrics. Acco....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... manufacture to other parties for the purpose of carrying out several manufacturing processes or carrying out tests. Specific reliance was placed in this regard on the provisions of Rule 56B, 57F(3) and 57F(iv). The contention of the appellant was that there was no short levy or evasion of duty as the fabrics, upon return, were cleared after payment of duty. The adjudicating authority rejected thi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....F(iv) procedure. However, this is not a mere procedural lapse as is being made out by them. For following this procedure they had to pay Central Excise duty first and then only could have removed the semi-finished fabrics. Therefore there was definite loss of revenue." 7.In order to appreciate the correctness of the above finding, we may read Rule 56B :- "RULE 56B. Special procedure for remo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... whom the goods have been sent." 8.A perusal of Rule 56B makes it clear that the Rule permits removal of goods under manufacture "without payment of duty". This is clear from the language of the Rule, as well as context of the Rule. If the goods were to be removed after payment of duty as held by the Commissioner, the Rule would not have cast any obligation on the assessee to bring back the goo....