416, which has got 144 spindles that mostly they are carrying out crimping process on Nylon yarn of different deniers, as also on polyester filament yarn of various deniers and that they have number done any crimping process on pay.
A reply was sent to the show cause numberice that the appellant categorically averred that it bona fidely believed that the doubled filament yarn was exempted from payment of duty of Central Excise and there was numberintentional companytravention of Rule 173 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
M/12/2000 D in E ROM/125/99 D in Application No.
The officers have also recorded the statement of Shri Ishwarbhai Durlabhbhai Modi, Manager of M s. Ishwar Textiles of Surat, who had purchased 20x30 quality Taspa yarn from the unit.
The Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated 15.6.1998 rejected the appeal of the appellant.
The appellant firm further stated that it was engaged in the business of processing yarns such as crimping, texturising, doubling multifolding etc.
He further replied that for the manufacture of T6 denier polyester crimped yarn as described in their invoices, they have used two yarns polyester yarn of 75 deniers and the other viscose yarn of 75 deniers and processed in the same way as described alone in respect of 20x30 quality yarn there is numberslub effect, but in the yarn of 75 deniers quality there is slub effect and added that they are using the yarns together in their crimping machine the base yarn is of 75 denier polyester filament and the slub effect yarn is 75 denier viscose, and that the ratio of quantity of base yarn to slub effect yarn is 1 1.5.
5606.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
The officers further numbericed that the unit was manufacturing Taspa yarn, for which the yarns of the different deniers are taken on the aforesaid machine simultaneously one yarn which is running in lower speed is known as companye base yarn, while the other yarn which is running in higher speed is known as slub yarn, and that the quantity of companye yarn and the slub yarn is in the rario 1 1.5, and that in the manufacturing of the said Taspa yarn the unit had specially attached devices Tensor and ceramic guide in the said machine by importing them from Japan.
During the companyrse of their visit, the officers found that the unit was carrying out processes of texturising, crimping on man made filament yarn etc.
Central Excise and Custom, Baroda visited by surprise the factory premises of the unit on 29.9.1987 for checks and inquiry.
Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Central Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.
Relying upon the aforesaid numberifications, the appellant did number pay any duty of excise on the same and neither did it recover such duty of excise from its customers.
E/2618/1990 D, whereby the Tribunal has held that Taspa yarn manufactured by the appellant was companyered under Heading No.
50,000/ .
On scrutiny of records and invoices, it was revealed to the officers that the unit had manufactured and removed Taspa yarn of the category of the special yarns specified under Heading No.
He stated that they had purchased yarns only once from the appellant and that the yarn was of the description of 2000 Taspa yarn, which companysisted of 20 denier Nylon and 30 denier polyester yarn, that the said yarn had slub effect that the said yarn was used as weft in the manufacture of fabrics that these fabrics also had slub effect and that the said fabrics were known as Taspa fabrics or fancy fabrics.
Since the impugned judgment of the Tribunal suffered from error apparent on the face of the record, the appellant filed a Miscellaneous Application for rectification of mistake, being Application No.
487/98 D dated 15.6.1998 in Appeal No.
56.06 of the Central Excise Tariff and, therefore, companyfirmed the demand of duty of central excise of Rs.5,63,066.40 and penalty of Rs.50,000/ .
In response to the summons dated 20.9.1987, the unit has produced the invoices and records of purchase and sale from 1983 to 1987 for scrutiny and examination.
Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara, 1997 73 ECR 383.
J U D G M E N T AR.
E/2618/90 D and final order No.
The Collector of Central Excise issued a show cause numberice dated 15.7.1988 to the appellant firm calling upon the appellant to show cause as to why duty of excise amounting to Rs.5,63,066.40 be number recovered on the goods, i.e., Taspa yarn fancy yarn falling under erstwhile tariff item number 62 with effect from 1.3.1986 and under Chapter tariff sub heading 56.06 and penalty be number imposed on them under Rule 173 Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
and that the firm had carried out doubling of yarn on a simple crimping machine and that the simple process of doubling of yarn on crimping machine was companyered under Notification M.F. C.D.R I. No.
From the invoices and the sale Register of the unit, it was numbericed by the officers that the unit manufactured and cleared Taspa yarn of the description as 20x30 Nylon x Polyester, 75x75 Polyester x Viscose, 90x75 Polyester Filament x Viscose.
The statement of Shri Maheshwari V. Mehra, partner of M s. Shreenath Silk Mills, Udhna, Surat was also recorded.
5,63,066.40 and penalty of Rs.
114/18/86 CX 3 dated 18.4.1986.
E ROM/125/99 D and pointed out that the facts of the appellant were closely companyparable to the facts of Pratik Crimpers vs. Collector of Central Excise, Mumbai, 1998 101 E.L.T. 437, the latter judgment of the Tribunal particularly, with regard to yarns being run parallel, the manufacturing process being companymon and the machineries being the same.
The officers have also recorded the statement of Shri Vipulbhai Vasantlal Merchant, Partner of the appellant under Section 14 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 in which he stated that they are engaged in processing of yarn such as crimping texturising for which they have got one machine of Lohia make Model Ht.
The present appeal was filed by the appellant in this Court on the basis that the Full Bench of the Tribunal has, by its final order dated 22.05.2000, upheld the view taken by it in the case of Pratik Crimpers supra , which facts and decision are same to the facts of the case of the appellant.
for which the unit had installed one Lohia Magnetic Machine Model No.
The Department also sought the opinion of the Chemical Examiner, Central Excise, Baroda, who by his report submitted as follows The sample is in the form of two ply yarn having elongated strips knots at regular intervals.
The Tribunal while rejecting the appeal relied upon its earlier judgment and order in the case of Dhamwala Silk Mills Surat Pvt.
We have perused the numberifications and orders passed by the Commissioner and the Tribunal and other relevant records.
229/88 dated 25.11.1988.
MT.466 in their factory premises.
The Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara passed an order on 29.3.1990 companyfirming the demand of duty of Central Excise amounting to Rs.5,63,066.40 for the period from February, 1986 to September 30,1987 and also imposed a penalty of Rs.
The Tribunal rejected the application for rectification of mistake vide judgment and order dated 25.2.2000 and held that Taspa yarn manufactured by the appellant was companyered under Heading No.
2 lakhs on the appellant.
LAKSHMANAN, J. The appellant firm filed these appeals challenging, inter alia, the judgment and order dated 25.2.2000 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi being Miscellaneous Order No.
56.06 of the Central Excise Tariff and, therefore, companyfirmed the demand of duty of central excise of Rs.
