1994 (9) TMI 103

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... On 19th April, 1974 Central Preventive Office of the Central Excise, Kanpur, paid a visit to the appellant's premises. It found that the appellant was engaged in the processing of cotton canvas and duck cotton fabrics with the aid of power. Show cause notice was, therefore, issued to the appellant on 15th October, 1974 for contravention of provisions of Rules 173B, 173C, 173G, 52A, 53, 9 and 173F....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ld that the power was not used it was established that the fabrics were processed with the aid of steam, therefore, the differential duty was liable to be paid by the appellant. The order was affirmed in appeal. In further appeal the Tribunal held that there was no evidence to prove that the appellant had used power in processing the fabrics. But it held that the appellant having admitted that it ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ny error of law. As regards the finding on use of steam for processing it is true that it was not mentioned in the show cause notice but the appellant having admitted that it had used steam in boiling the dye etc., it cannot be said that the Tribunal could not have recorded the finding that the appellant had processed the cloth with steam. On merits, therefore, the finding is not liable to be set ....