2000 (10) TMI 157

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dated 1-3-1997 was amended, in respect of the Acrylic Yarn produced by the appellants during the period from 11-4-1997 to 5-6-1997. 3.The Assistant Commissioner vide his impugned Order has held that the Dyed Yarn classifiable under sub-heading 5509.32 stood exempted till 10-4-1997 in terms of Notification No. 4/97-C.E., dated 1-3-1997 under Serial No. 115 of the Notification. As a result of amendment of the said notification by Notification No. 19/97, Serial Nos. 115 and 116 of Notification No. 4/97 were substituted by Serial Nos. 115, 116, 116A and 116B and Condition Nos. 15A, 15B, 15C and 15D were inserted against the said Serial Nos. respectively. Inasmuch as the respondents' yarn was covered by Serial No. 115 of the amended notificatio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ld be entitled to the benefit of Modvat credit of duty paid on the raw materials. The above view has been taken on the ground that Modvat credit is not admissible on duty paying documents after expiry of six months from the date of their issuance as also on the ground that no declaration was filed by the respondents under Rule 57G. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner had confirmed a demand of duty of Rs. 11,14,330.00 (Rupees eleven lakhs fourteen thousand three hundred thirty) and also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 50,000.00 (Rupees fifty thousand) on the respondents. 7.On appeal against the above Order, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the impugned Order of the Assistant Commissioner and allowed the appeal of the respondents ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... error in drafting but the intention has been made clear to exempt the process of dyeing yarn from paying further duty. In view of the above I am not of the opinion that the appellants are liable to pay duty for the period from 11-4-1997 to 5-6-1997. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief. There shall be no penalty." 10.As is evident from the above paragraph, the fact that during the intervening period, the benefit was not available to the respondents, has not been disputed. The Commissioner (Appeals) has gone by the factor that the Notification has been mis-worded which can be put to human error in drafting. However, we do not find any justifiable reason to support the above finding of the Commissioner (Appeals). It ....