TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (10) TMI 86
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 11A(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on the first named and another Rs. 20,000/- on the second under Rule 173Q(1) and/or 9(2) and/or 52A and/or 210 ibid. The learned Commissioner also confiscated 4,492.070 kgs. of texturised dyed yarn, 1,550 kgs. of texturised yarn, 126.020 kgs of defective yarn and 4,604.250 kgs. of POY lying in the factory of the appellants. Aggrieved by this order, the appellants came in appeal along with a stay application. The stay application was earlier disposed of dispensing with the pre-deposit of duties and penalties. The main appeal is now taken up for final orders. 2.A little background to this issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pur (M/s. Virlon Textile Mills Ltd. run by M/s. Pushpa International, the appellants) for getting the yarn made into textured yarn on job work basis. M/s. PIL would export the processed yarn and fulfil the export obligation. The Assistant Collector, Vapi, permitted them to send the said POY to the appellants' unit ostensibly under powers vested with him under Rule 191BB. It is not clear, though how this rule permits him to allow movement of raw material from one unit registered under Rule 191BB to another unit. Thus duty free POY comes from Rajasthan to Silvassa, moves to Tarapur, gets processed and moves back to Silvassa, which will then be exported by M/s. PIL. The troubles the exporters take to fulfil export obligation cast on them are a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issue of limitation, it is argued that the demand is time-barred as the Department issued the show cause notice beyond the period of six months from the date of clearance of the goods by the appellants. The appellants filed a classification list declaring their claim for the benefit of Notification 34/94, they cannot be accused of suppressing any facts. 7.The departmental representative argued that since the said notification clearly speaks of yarn imported under DES, only imported yarn is covered under it. In the present case, it is clearly established that the yarn used for texturising is indigenously made and when such yarn is texturised, the benefit of Notification 34/94 is not available. On the aspect of limitation, he argued that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the exemption notification. The issue here is whether one can broaden the scope of the words "imported under DES" so as to cover other than imported goods as well. In our opinion, had the expression in the notification been "procured under DES" perhaps the notification would have covered both imported and locally procured goods under DES. The appellants are not covered under Notification 34/94. 10.The Commissioner says that the appellants wrongly claimed the benefit of the said notification. Wrongly claiming a benefit does not amount to suppression or misdeclaration with an intent to evade duty unless such wrong claim is made by suppressing relevant facts which are germane to the claim. In this case, the appellants say that they have d....