Page 161 - GSTL_11th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 2

2020 ] MOHAN TEXTILES v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-V 247
ried out through job workers and products cleared by availing benefits of SSI
exemption vide Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. - Demand of differential duty
raised on the ground that goods falling under Heading 54.06 of Central Excise
Tariff and not under Heading 59.11 ibid, hence, assessee ineligible for exemp-
tion claimed - HELD : Product used for making tailor made filter bags to be
used in chemical and pharmaceutical plants - As woven fabrics subjected to
further processing to make same fit for technical uses, synthetic woven fabric
ought to be classified under Chapter 54.06 ibid and not Chapter 59.11 ibid -
Assessee not entitled for SSI exemption under said Notification - Assessee’s
assertion that manufacturing carried out on job work basis and assessee not
manufacturer, rightly rejected by Commissioner (Appeals) in invoking Rule
12B of Central Excise Rules, 2002 inserted vide Notification No. 24/2003-C.E.
(N.T.) - No error noticed in impugned order in respect of classification of
product cleared by assessee. [paras 5.1, 5.2]
Demand - Limitation - Invocation of extended period - Suppression,
Absence of - Misclassification of product - Fact of availment of benefit of ex-
emption Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. and classification of woven fabrics of
synthetic filament yarn manufactured, under Heading 5911 of Central Excise
Tariff informed by assessee to department - Further proprietor in statement
stated that product “mistakenly” classified under Chapter 59 instead of Chap-
ter 54 of Central Excise Tariff - No case of suppression of facts to evade duty
made out to justify invocation of extended period - Impugned order set aside -
Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 corresponding to Section 73 of Finance
Act, 1994. [para 5.3]
Appeal allowed
CASES CITED
Anuradha Processors v. Commissioner
— 2007 (213) E.L.T. 350 (Tribunal) — Referred ............................................................................ [Para 4]
Commissioner v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. — 2002 (141) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) — Referred .............................. [Para 5.2]
Commissioner v. Surbhit Impex Pvt. Ltd. — 2012 (286) E.L.T. 500 (Bom.) — Referred ................... [Para 4]
Doshion Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2011 (274) E.L.T. 468 (Tribunal) — Followed ........................... [Para 5.3]
DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATIONS CITED
C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 48/2/97-CX, dated 17-4-1997 ....................................................................... [Para 3]
C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 759/75/2003-CX, dated 30-10-2003 ............................................................. [Para 3]
C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 803/36/2004-CX, dated 27-12-2004 .......................................................... [Para 5.2]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri R.V. Shetty, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri Sanjay Hasija, Superintendent, Authorised
Representative, for the Respondent.
[Order per : Suvendu Kumar Pati, Member (J)]. - Denial of SSI exemp-
tion to the appellant in confirming change of classification of the products by the
Commissioner (Appeals) in Appeal No. E/1378/2011 is assailed in this appeal.
2. Facts of the case that has given rise to the present appeal is as fol-
lows.
2.1 Appellant was dealing in textile fabrics used for industrial applica-
tions such as filtration purpose. The manufacturing of goods were made through
job worker and appellant was clearing the same by availing exemption benefit
available for SSI units under Chapter Heading 59.11 vide Notification No.

GST LAW TIMES  11th June 2020  161