TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (4) TMI 134
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he conditions specified in Coluinn-5 of the Table appended to the Notification. We are concerned with Serial No. 1 and 5 which read as under: S.No. Chapter Description of goods Rate Conditions (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 1 51, 52, 54 or 55 Yarn (other than sewing or multifold including cabled yarn, whether or not dyed, printed, bleached or mercerised Nil If the yarn is,-(i) meant for use in the manufacture of fabrics; and (ii) manufactured out of yarn falling within Chapters 51, 52, 54 or 55 of the said Schedule on which the appropriate duty of excise under the said Schedule, or as the case may be, the additional duty leviable under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), has already been paid. 5. 52, 54 or 55 Yarn subjected t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n under Serial No. 5 of the Notification. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) held that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the exemption. Being aggrieved the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT). The two members constituting the Tribunal differed in their conclusions. The matter was referred to a third member. The third member agreed with the view that M/s. Coats Viyella (India) Ltd. were entitled to the benefit of Serial No. 5 of the Notification and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Hence the appeal preferred by the Revenue before us. 5. As far as M/s. Devangere Cotton Mills Ltd. was concerned they sought to contend before the third member that they were sim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... grounds not taken in the memorandum of appeal. The only limitation on this power of the Tribunal is that the party affected must be given an opportunity of being heard in respect of the new grounds sought to be urged. According to the M/s. Devangere Cotton Mills Ltd., the issue had been raised originally before the Tribunal and again before the third member when it was referred to the third member on a difference of opinion, the Revenue had ample opportunity of dealing with the submission. Besides, it was submitted, that the issue was in any event being agitated in the matter of M/s. Coats Viyella (India) Ltd. and there was no question of taking the Revenue by surprise. 8. We are of the view that the Tribunal did erred in refusing to hear....