Commissioner Of Central Excise, Trichy v. Madura Coats Ltd. .

Order

1. The period in question is 1-3-1994 to 24-4-1994. The appellant during this period manufactured polyester/nylon/filament/yarn and cotton twisted yarn. On the allegation that the respondent had wrongly cleared goods without payment of duty by availing of Notification No. 26/94 read with Notification No. 79/94, a show-cause notice was issued against the respondent as to why duty should not be demanded in accordance with the provisions of the Central Excise Act and penalty imposed under the Rules. The departmental authorities confirmed the demand and the matter came up before the Tribunal. There it was contended by the respondent that there was no manufacture of the twisted yarn subsequent to the manufacture of the single ply. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in CCE v. Banswara Syntex Ltd. (1996) 11 SCC 55, (1996) 88 ELT 645 as well as the decision of this Court in Porritts & Spencer (Asia) Ltd. v. CCE 1995 Supp (3) SCC 219, (1999) 106 ELT 18. The Tribunal accepted this. The appellant's only grievance is that since the issue was raised for the first time before the Tribunal, the matter should have been remanded back to the Assistant Commissioner for the purpose of determining the factual basis of the respondent assessee's claim. The Tribunal rejected this contention and following the decisions relied upon by the respondent, upheld its contentions and set aside the demand for duty and penalty.

2. The principle enunciated by the decisions in the two cases relied upon by the Tribunal is not disputed by learned counsel for the appellant. We are of the view that having regard to the fact that the show-cause notice was issued on the basis that the yarn in question was twisted yarn, there is no useful purpose that would be served by remanding the matter back to the departmental authorities for considering whether the yarn in question is twisted or not. The appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs.