Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Sarla Polyester Limites and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Sarla Polyester Limites and vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jan 16, 2004
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/33832

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sarla Polyester Limites and

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In
(2004)(176)ELT481Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....and imposed a penalty of equal amount on m/s. sarla polyester ltd. and imposed a penalty of rs. 44,89,000/- on its director. the demand consists of two parts:- [1] demand of rs. 15,93,013/- has been confirmed on dta clearances made by the manufacturing unit which is a 100% eou on clearances between 16.9.99 and february 2002 on the basis of 50% of the aggregate of duties of customs as per notification no. 2/95-ce dt. 4.1.1995. [2] demand of rs. 28,96,358/- has been confirmed as a result of classification of yarn manufactured and cleared during the period march 2001 to february 2002 under central excise tariff subheading 5402.6 (nylon yarn) and 5402.62 (polyester yarn) as against the manufacturers claim for classification of the covered yarn under central excise tariff sub-heading 5606.00.2. we have heard both sides. the issue as to the correct method of computation of duty in terms of notification no. 2/95 namely as to whether duty was payable on the basis of amount equal to 50% each of the duties of customs as contended by the applicants or on the basis of 50% of the aggregate duties of customs has held by the commissioner, is an issue which has been referred to the larger bench by order no.c-ii/3114/wzb/2003 dated 3.12.03 in the case of indoworth india ltd. v.commissioner of central excise, nagpur, after noting the divergent views in the case of futura polymers v. cce [2003 (54) rlt 405] and uniworth textiles ltd. v. cce (unreported decision in appeal no. e/762 to 769/02), as two contrary view on this issue have been expressed by the tribunal, a strong prima facie case for wavier of predeposit has been made out. we, therefore, dispense with the predeposit of duty of rs. 15,93,013/- and stay recovery thereof pending the appeals.3. as regards the demand on the second count, applicant's submission is that even if the yarn manufactured by them falls for classification under chapter heading 5402, the benefit of exemption in terms of notification no. 3/2001 which.....

Full Judgment

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise Vapi, who has confirmed duty demand of Rs. 44,89,471/- and imposed a penalty of equal amount on M/s. Sarla Polyester Ltd. and imposed a penalty of Rs. 44,89,000/- on its Director. The demand consists of two parts:- [1] Demand of Rs. 15,93,013/- has been confirmed on DTA clearances made by the manufacturing unit which is a 100% EOU on clearances between 16.9.99 and February 2002 on the basis of 50% of the aggregate of duties of customs as per Notification No. 2/95-CE dt.

4.1.1995.

[2] Demand of Rs. 28,96,358/- has been confirmed as a result of classification of yarn manufactured and cleared during the period March 2001 to February 2002 under Central Excise Tariff subheading 5402.6 (Nylon Yarn) and 5402.62 (Polyester Yarn) as against the manufacturers claim for classification of the covered yarn under Central Excise Tariff sub-heading 5606.00.

2. We have heard both sides. The issue as to the correct method of computation of duty in terms of notification No. 2/95 namely as to whether duty was payable on the basis of amount equal to 50% each of the duties of customs as contended by the applicants or on the basis of 50% of the aggregate duties of customs has held by the Commissioner, is an issue which has been referred to the Larger Bench by Order No.C-II/3114/WZB/2003 dated 3.12.03 in the case of Indoworth India Ltd. v.Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur, after noting the divergent views in the case of Futura Polymers v. CCE [2003 (54) RLT 405] and Uniworth Textiles Ltd. v. CCE (unreported decision in Appeal No. E/762 to 769/02), as two contrary view on this issue have been expressed by the Tribunal, a strong prima facie case for wavier of predeposit has been made out. We, therefore, dispense with the predeposit of duty of Rs. 15,93,013/- and stay recovery thereof pending the appeals.

3. As regards the demand on the second count, applicant's submission is that even if the yarn manufactured by them falls for classification under Chapter heading 5402, the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 3/2001 which is available to Air mingled Yarn is admissible, in view of the finding that they were using Inter-mingling Machinery and that the Polyester/Nylon yarn was attached to Lycra/Spandex Yarn due to pressurized air by the technique of inter-mingling, and that they had paid the appropriate duty of excise on the base yarn (which at the relevant time was interpreted as including even Nil rate of duty), thus fulfilling the condition of the exemption notification. We find prima facie substance in this plea as the notification covers inter-alia air-mingled yarn falling under Sub-heading 5402.61/5402.62, subject to the condition of manufacture out of base yarn falling under certain headings (this conditions stands fulfilled by the applicants) and subject to the condition of payment of appropriate duty of excise on the base yarn, and until 2002, the CBE&C Circular clarifying that the expression "appropriate duty of excise" would also include "nil" duty was operative and the Apex Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara v. Dhiren Chemical Industries [2002 (143) E.L.T. 19 (S.C.)] has held that regardless of the fact that the Supreme Court in 2002 (139) ELT 3 (S.C.) in the case of Dhiren Chemical Industries has held that the expression "appropriate amount of duty" does not include "Nil" duty, since circulars had been issued by the CBE&C placing at different interpretation, that interpretation would be binding upon the Revenue. We, therefore, waive the predeposit of duty of Rs. 28,96,358/- and stay recovery thereof pending these appeals. Predeposit of penalties imposed upon the company and its Director also stands waived and recovery thereof stayed pending the appeals.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial