Back
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
K.L. Rekhi, V.T. Raghavachari, D.C. Mandal, JJ.
Calico Mills -Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad -Respondent
Order No. 236/1985-D, 236 of 1985
Decided On : 17-07-1985
K.C. Sachar
1. The point of dispute in this case is whether spindle tapes of width 15 cms. or less were liable to central excise duty in terms of the proviso to Exemption Notification No. 226/77-C.E., dated 15-7-1977. Appellants are not present at the time of hearing today. By their letter dated 18-6-1985 they have requested that the matter may be decided on merits in their absence. They have sent certain written submissions which we have considered. We have also heard learned Representative of the Department. His prayer is that the matter may be remanded to the lower authority to deal with the appellants' new contention that duty demanded from them was fabric duty and not yarn duty. In response to our query, he confirmed that according to the record the other two exemption Notification No. 70/69-C.E., dated 1-3-1969, No. 91/69-C.E., dated 1-3-1969 were in force during the material period.
2. We have carefully considered the matter. The exemption Notification No. 70/69-C.E. and 91/69-C.E., both dated 1-3-1969 gave total exemption to cotton fabrics of not more than 15 cms. in width, so far as the duty liable under item 19 of the Central Excise Tariff is concerned. Exemption Notification No. 226/77-C.E. dated 15-7-1977 invoked by the lower authorities also relates to cotton fabrics and it gave a partial exemption from fabric duty. Since spindle tapes of width not more than 15 cms. manufactured and cleared by the appellants were totally exempted from duty under the two Notifications relied upon by them, without any further contention, the authorities are not justified in denying them this total exemption. One exemption Notification cannot take away the benefit given by another separate Notification. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow this appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
