2016 (12) TMI 1316

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Shri. SV Nair, Supdt. (AR) for respondent Per: M.V. Ravindran 1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.PII/BKS/312-313/2005 dated 12/08/2005 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune. 2. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 3. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are the appellant herein is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods i.e. "cott....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch invoked extended period for demand of duty, interest and impositions of penalties. 3.1 The main contention of the learned Counsel is that they were under the bonafide belief that doubling of yarn does not amount to manufacture and this belief was due to judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Mumbai-V Vs. Swastik Rayon Processors - 2007 (209) ELT 163 (SC) and the Larger Benc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd the interest thereon needs to be upheld. Reliance placed upon by the learned Counsel in the case of Swastik Rayon Processors (supra) and New Shorrock Mills (supra), will not carry their case any further as on perusal of the said decision, we find that period involved in both the cases were prior to the chapter note (1) in Chapter 52, incorporating doubling of yarn as deemed manufacture. In view....