TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 1299
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1,59,75,117/- and imposed penalty of equivalent amount under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Further, penalty of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- has been imposed on Sh. Avinash Paliwal, Director under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Both the appeals are arising out of the same impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, both the appeals are taken up together for discussion and decision. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants were purchasing grey Yarn falling under Chapter sub-heading 5205.11. The part of the yarn used to be sent to other manufacturer for the purpose of dyeing. Dyed yarn was used in the manufacture of Handloom Durries and Rugs which wer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts from the department. 3. This is a second round of litigation, in the first round of litigation the Tribunal vide its order dated 31.05.2017 set aside the impugned Order-in-Original and allowed the appeals of the appellant on time bar by holding that the show cause notice is hit by limitation. Against the said order, the Revenue filed the appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana and the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 23.03.2023 set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 31.05.2017 and remanded the matter back to reconsider the issue and pass a fresh order on merits as well as on limitation by affording due opportunity to both the parties. 4. In this background, we have heard both the parties and perused of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e customs officers and statement of the appellant and all job workers of appellant were recorded by the customs officers and all the job workers admitted that they are doing manufacturing/dyeing on job work for the appellant and they further stated that grey yarn was sent to them by M/s Paliwal Overseas Pvt. Ltd. on challans and that the said yarn was got dyed by them from other firms and the final goods/dyed yarn were sent to the appellant. 9. The Ld. Counsel further submits that on 13.08.2004 the appellant intimated to the department that they had no facility of processing yarn for the purpose of dyeing and vide letter dated 13.08.2004 they had supplied the details of dyeing from job worker during the period from May 03 to July 03. He fu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CCE A.P (2006 (197) E.L.T 465 (S.C.)] - CC Mumbai Vs. C.M.S Computers P. Ltd. [2005 (182) E.L.T. 20 (S.C.)] 12. He further submits that in the present case, the appellant has got their goods manufactured/yarn dyed from job worker. The activity of yarn dyeing has been done by the job worker. In that circumstances, the job worker is the manufacturer of dyed yarn and if any duty payable on dyeing yarn then it is to be paid by the job worker. The dyed yarn by the job worker is not captively manufactured by the appellant. In that circumstance, notification 67/95-CE have no relevance to the facts of the present case. 13. Ld. Counsel further submits that the similar matter has already been settled in favour of other assessee by this court vid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the adjudicating authority. 16. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material on record. First of all we will deal with the issue of limitation because as per the appellant, the entire demand is barred by limitation. The appellant has been regularly filing the intimation/declaration/undertakings in terms of Notification No. 214/86-CE for removal of inputs i.e. grey yarn to independent processor for job work after filing requisite declaration and the copies of declaration have also been produced on record. 17. Further, we find that the entire information was available with the department firstly as early as when the show cause notice dated 05.08.2004 was issued to the appellant by the Commissioner of Cust....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... executed by them and accepted by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi and the show cause notice dated 05.08.2004 issued by Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) New Delhi was withdrawn in the light of CBEC's circular No. 19/05-Cus dated 21.03.2005. 20. Further, we find that during investigation statement of job workers were recorded which is also mentioned in the show cause notice and all of them have admitted that they are doing manufacturing/dyeing on job work for the appellant and they have also admitted that appellants have been sending the grey yarn on challan and the said yarn was got dyed by them from other firms and the finish goods were sent to the appellant. 21. We may further note that the appellant i....