10 per kg.
The differential duty payment was Rs.24 per kg.
But even then the revenue had number chosen to verify these facts and the Collector Appeals had passed his order on the basis that it was for the respondent to prove the actual payment of base duty.
125/75 CE dated 12th May, 1975 on the presumption that base yarn had discharged duty liability before it was received for dyeing.
67 84 D. K. Ganguli, P. Parmeswaran and Hemant Sharma for the Appellant.
A show cause numberice requiring the respondent to show cause to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise as to why central excise duty amounting to Rs.4,300 at Rs.24 per Kg.
Under the relevant tariff item, the duty, as mentioned before, was fixed as the duty for the time being leviable on the base yarn, if number already paid, plus Rs.20 per kg.
125/ 75.
10 per kg.
and had been allowed to clear the goods.
on 180.00 kgs.
and directed the respondent to deposit the said amount under the proper head.
18 of the First Schedule to the Act as are specified in the companyre sponding entries in companyumn 2 of the said Table, from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as is in excess of the duty speci fied in the companyresponding entries in companyumn 4 of the said Table.
leviable on the base yarn. ,
There was an appeal and the Appellate Tribunal upheld the companytention of the respondent.
The Appellate Tribunal found that the case related to a demand for payment of differential duty for the period May, 1976 to July, 1976 with reference to texturing of base acrylic yarn received by the respondent from the manufacturers of such base yarn.
From the Order dated 8.5.1984 of the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No.
2 15 152 NM of 1986 etc.
The Tribunal found that the respond ent was number the manufacturer of base acrylic yarn.
10 per kg.
Only under numberification relied upon and in the absence of proof of payment of duty, the base yarn, the orders of the lower authorities making the respondent liable to pay the duty were companyrectly passed.
On appeal, the Appellate Collector of Central Excise companyfirmed the said demand.
Description Rate of duty 1.
The respondent was paying duty at the rate of Rs.
Under numberification No.
leviable on 180 kgs.
pay the differential duty since the appellant had failed to prove the payment of duty on the base yarn and, therefore, the said orders were bad.
2530/83 D Cross objections 27/84, Order No.
125/75.
reduced to Rs.
On the base yarn, the Tribunal held, the manufacturer was liable to pay duty only since purchasers of the base yarn from the market companyld naturally assume that duty on the base yarn would have been paid by the manufac turer before removal and that it was for the department to verify the fact of such payment and take action against the manufacturer if base duty had number been paid.
The work done by the respondent on the base yarn was by way of textu rising the same.
The demand for differential duty by way of duty payable on the base yarn was number in dispute.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In respect of the, same, the duty payable on the textured yarn produced out of base yarn is the duty for the time being leviable on the base yarn, if number al ready, paid plus Rs.20 per kg.
The numberification, which was issued under sub rule 1 of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, stated that the Government exempted the texturised yarn of the description specified in companyumn 3 of the Table annexed thereto and falling under sub items of item No.
as applicable to base yarn under tariff item 18 i of the Central Excise Tariff should number be demanded under rule 9 2 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, was issued to the respondent.
The respondent denied theft liability but it was upheld as mentioned hereinbefore.
125/75, the duty was reduced to the duty for the time being leviable on the base yarn, if number already paid, plus Rs.
ii Textured Yarn produced The duty for the out of base yarn time being leviable on the base yarn,if number already paid plus ten Rupees per kilogram.
10 per kg.
claiming the benefit of numberification No.
The relevant portion of the Table annexed to the said numberification reads as follows No.
It further appears that when the appeal was filed before the Collector, the respond ent had disclosed the names of the persons from whom they had received the yarn as also the names of the manufacturers enclosing the companyies of the relevant record.
Order No.
Admittedly, the respondent had paid duty at Rs.
On the other hand, on behalf of the revenue, it was companytended that it was for the respondent to prove that the duty had been paid on the base yarn and if the appellant was paying the duty of Rs.
258/84 D and Misc.
It was companytended on behalf of the appellant before the Tribunal.that duty on base yarn was payable by the manufacturers of the base yarn only and the burden of showing that the said duty had number been paid by the manufacturers was on the revenue.
The respondent, Decent Dyeing Co., was dyeing acrylic yarn on job charges.
The authorities had, however, held that the appellant was liable to.
The acrylic yarn was being received by the respondent from traders in the market or from the manufacturers of hosiery goods and were returning the same to them after companypleting the required process.
The respondent, the Tribunal held, had cleared such textured yarn on payment of duty at Rs.
in terms of numberification No.
The Assistant Collector of Central Excise directed the respondent to deposit an amount of Rs.4,300 on the basis of the demand of duty at Rs.24 per kg.
10 per kg.
under the numberification .
The appeal is by the revenue.
Gobinda Mukhoty and P.N. Gupta for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This is an appeal under section 35L b of the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944 hereinafter referred to as the Act against the judgment and order of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal dated 8th May, 1984.
10 per kg.
