M/S.Raunaq Fabrics Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Ludhiana

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.258-267/CE/Appeal/Ldh/2005 dated 16.05.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana (Punjab)]

For approval and signature:

HONBLE MR. RAKESH KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

1. Whether Press reporters may be allowed to see the

order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT

(Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the

CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in

any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy

of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental

authorities?

__________________________________________________

M/s.Raunaq Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. Appellant

Vs.

CCE, Ludhiana  Respondent

Present for the Appellant : Shri.Rahul Tangri, CA

Present for the Respondent: Shri.M.S. Negi, DR

Coram:HONBLE MR. RAKESH KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

HONBLE MR.S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision: 08/04/2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 51182/2015

PER: RAKESH KUMAR

The appellant manufacture processed manmade knitted fabrics. The period of dispute in this case is from September 2002 to March, 2003, when they were availing of the exemption under Notification No.14/2002-CE which prescribed the concessional rate of duty for the processed manmade fabric subject to condition that the same are made from grey knitted fabrics on which the appropriate duty has been paid. The point of dispute in this case as to whether the condition for concessional rate, as prescribed in this notification, is satisfied or not. The department was of the view that the appellant do not satisfy the condition for this exemption notification while the appellants view was that in terms of Explanation II to the Notification, for the purpose of conditions of the exemption the textile yarn or fabrics shall be deemed to have been paid duty even without production of documents evidencing payment of duty thereon. The Department, however, being of the view that the appellant are not eligible for exemption, issued show cause notice for recovery of duty alongwith interest and imposition of penalty. These proceedings resulted in the duty demand being confirmed against the appellant along with interest and imposition of penalty on them vide Order-in-Original dated 25.02.2005 passed by the Dy. Commissioner which on being filed to Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld vide Order-in-Appeal dated 16.05.2005. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal has been filed.

2. Heard both the sides.

3. Both the sides agree that the issue involved in this case stands decided in favour of the appellant by Larger bench judgment of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Arvind Products Ltd. vs. CCE & ST, Ahmedabad reported in 2014-TIOL-2524-CESTAT-AHM-LB. In view of this, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed.

[Dictated & Pronounced in the open Court].

(S.K.MOHANTY) (RAKESH KUMAR)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL) MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Anita

??

??

??

??

0

2