AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (7) TMI 365
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amounting to Rs. 7,57,266/- on clearance of 84407.50 meter of man made fabrics, cleared after 1-3-2001. 4. The necessary allegations were, that prior to 1-3-2001, the assessee was paying central excise duty on the said man made fabric under 'Compounded Levy Scheme' in accordance with the notifications in force from time to time, including the one dated 1-3-2000. Since 1-3-2001 the 'Compounded Levy Scheme' was withdrawn, and duty on ad valorem basis was levied. On account of this change, the assessee declared the stock of finished/processed man made fabrics lying in their factory at 2400 Hrs on 28-2-2001 as 977737.40 meters, and in addition also submitted, that the stock of 84407.50 metres of fabrics, which has been .passed through the stenters was also lying at open decatising machine TMT.KD, zero-zero and folding, machine which was taken by the Department as not fully processed, and being pending for some processes, and not reached to the "finished goods stage" (earlier RG-1). It may be observed that in the other appeal the figures of the demand of excise duty and the figures of the two categories of man made fabrics differ otherwise the facts are common. According to the Departm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was deemed to have been paid thereon, as such no duty can be claimed on that stock. It was contended, that the stock was physically verified on 28-2-2001 at 24.00 Hrs, and also the two stocks of fabrics, and they had also given a letter to the Assistant Commissioner mentioning that 86341.00 meters of finished goods were lying in their process house, for OD/TMT/Zero Zero finish/Folding, and this has not been entered in RG-1 on 28-2-2001, but it was completed from stentering process, for which duty had already been paid under the 'Compounded Levy Scheme'. It was also contended, that of course the goods were entered in RG-1 after cut off time, but then, since the duty already stood paid under the 'Compounded Levy Scheme', duty was not payable over again. Obviously levy of penalty was also contested. The learned Joint Commissioner by the order in original confirmed the demand of excise duty, and imposed a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- (in both the cases ). The learned Commissioner posed the question to be considered, being, as to whether 84407.50 metres man made fabric which was lying unfinished for decatising process with the assessee on the midnight of 28-2-2001, can be allowed to be clea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tantial questions of law:- "(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 96ZQ of the Rules of 1944 was leviable on the duty payable under Stenters Rules at the stage of finishing process? (ii) Whether change of law w.e.f. 1st March, 2001 brought change in respect of Duty which became payable and paid until 28th Feb., 2001?" 9. Assailing the impugned orders, the learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made before the learned Joint Commissioner, Commissioner, and the learned Tribunal, and also invited our attention to the whole process of manufacture. Learned counsel also made available for our perusal the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 2000, on account of which, the compounded levy was being made. 10. Learned counsel for the Revenue supported the impugned orders. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, have considered the submissions, and have gone through the impugned judgments, so also the relevant provisions of law. 12. According to Rule 2 of the said Rules being Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6001.12, 6001.22, 6001.92, 6002.20, 6002.30, 6002.43, or 6002.93 of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 was required to pay excise duty, dependent on its production capacity, as assessed under the Rules of 2000, and at the rate prescribed under Rule 96ZQ of the Rules of 1944, and was to pay duty specified therein; meaning thereby, that if the assessee manufactures textile fabric, as falling under either of the aforesaid sub headings, its liability arises as above. 13. That being the position, and it being the fundamental to the provision of Central Excise Act, that the liability to pay excise duty arises on the manufacture of the commodity concerned, and collection of excise duty, on removal of commodity from the premises, is only a matter of convenience. Even if the assessee manufactures goods leviable excise duty, and they are not removed, still liability to pay excise duty, does arise. 14. In that view of the matter, in this matter it is to be seen, as to at what stage can it be said, that the assessee manufactured the textile fabric in question, i.e. whether the manufacture is complete when all the processes including packing are complete, and it is entered ....