AMRITSAR SWADESHI WOOLLEN MILLS Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question which arises in this appeal is whether the demand of Additional Excise Duty of Rs. 2,35,945 on Shoddy Woollen fabrics/blankets as confirmed by the authorities below for the period September to December, 1997 is sustainable or not. Shoddy Woollen fabrics/blankets exceeding Rs. 100 per sq. m. in value were exempt from payment of Additional Excise Duty leviable under the Additional Excise Duty (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 under Notification No. 9/96 -CE dated 23.7.96 vide SI. No. 4 of the Table annexed to the Notification. The appellants manufactured and cleared Shoddy Woollen fabrics of both the categories, i.e. of value upto Rs. 100 per sq. m. and exceeding Rs. 100 per sq. m. during the above period and filed RT -12 Returns from month to month. On the basis of these Returns, the department issued a show -cause notice on 17.2.98, wherein it was alleged that 47305 pieces of Shoddy Woollen blankets exceeding Rs. 100 per sq. m. in value had been cleared without payment of AED under the 1957 Act during the aforesiad period (September to December 1997) as per the details shows in Annexure -A to the Notice. The said Annexure to the Show -cause notice reads as under:

(2.) The show -cause notice was specifically on the basis of RT -12 Returns. The noticee contested the above allegation and the demand of duty, on the strength of the very same RT -12s. They produced copies of the Returns also to the adjudicating authority. That authority confirmed demand of duty to extent of Rs. 2,35,945 on the quantity of 10680 pieces of Shoddy Woollen blankets exceeding Rs. 100 per sq. m. in value. In their appeal preferred against the decision of the original authority, the appellants pleaded before the Commissioner (Appeals) that the goods, in respect of which AED had been demanded by the original authority, were different from the goods on which the duty was demanded by the department in the show -cause notice. In other words, the appellants pleaded that the decision of the original authority was beyond the scope of the show -cause notice. This plea was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the lower authority's decision. Hence this appeal before the Tribunal

(3.) Heard both sides.