TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 475
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed captively as intermediate product for the manufacture of the above said exempted final product. The durries were manufactured on handlooms manually without the aid of power and were exempted from payment of duty. The show cause notice was issued to the appellants on the ground that the appellant has consumed the dyed yarn in their factory and since the handloom durries was chargeable to nil rate of duty the benefit of Notification No.67/95-CE dated 16.3.1995 was not available to them. Period of dispute is 01.03.2003 to 13.01.2004 and show cause notice was issued on 28.11.2006. The matter was adjudicated and the demand of Rs. 4,31,167/- was confirmed along with interest and imposition of equivalent penalty on Appellant No.1 and penalty of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7 (SC) (iv) Oswal Agro Mills Vs. CCE-1995 (75) ELT 21 (SC) (v) Basant Industries Vs. CCE, Kanpur-1995 (75) ELT 21 (SC) (vi) Vinod Kumar Gupta Vs. CCE-2013 (287) ELT 54 (P&H). Learned Counsel also argued that the situation was revenue neutral as they would have got refund for the duty paid since the goods were exported. 3. Learned AR reiterated the findings in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and submitted that since the goods have been captively consumed in the manufacture of durries which was chargeable to nil rate of duty, the benefit of Notification No.67/95-CE was not available to them. 4. Heard the parties and examined the records. 5. We find that the dyed yarn on which the duty has been demanded was used in the manufactu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned in the second and the third show cause notices. It is well settled that the show cause notice is the foundation in the matter of levy and recovery of duty, penalty and interest. If there is no invocation of Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules 1975 in the show cause notice, it would not be open to the Commissioner to invoke the said rule. We therefore find force in the argument of the appellant that invocation of Rule 12B by the Commissioner (Appeals), which fastens duty liability on the appellant, is without jurisdiction. 6. We also agree with the contention that the appellant had no control on the job workers and the Revenue has not been able to produce any evidence that the job workers are manufacturing the goods on their account. As has ....