Cal. HC: POSH Committee to Re-Consider Complaint Dismissed for Being Barred by Limitation  ||  Financial Assistance Scheme for District Judiciary Employees Introduced by CJ of Madras HC  ||  MP HC: ?20 Lakh Minimum Threshold for Loan Recovery by NBFCs Not Applicable on HFCs  ||  Delhi High Court: Man Held Guilty of Criminal Contempt for Posting Video Defaming Judges  ||  Kar HC: State to Not Take Action Against Old Vehicles For High-Security Number Plates Till June 12  ||  Delhi High Court: Centenary Chance Exams of Delhi University Not a Matter of Right  ||  Delhi High Court: Centenary Chance Exams of Delhi University Not a Matter of Right  ||  Delhi High Court: Centenary Chance Exams of Delhi University Not a Matter of Right  ||  Ker. HC: To Seek Investigation u/s 156(3) of CrPC, Pre-Conditions Have to be Satisfied  ||  OBC Certificates Issued In West Bengal After 2010 Cancelled by Calcutta High Court    

Panasonic Energy India Co. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Indore - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (18 Oct 2016)

Mere mentioning of product in the tariff is not sufficient to attract excise levy

MANU/CE/0436/2016

Excise

Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of dry battery cell liable to central excise duty. They were availing Cenvat Credit of duty paid on inputs and capital goods as well as services. Revenue proceeded to demand duty on said scrap of paper under the heading 4707 as waste and scrap of paper or paper board. Original Authority as well as the first Appellate Authority confirmed the demand against the appellant. An equal amount of penalty also was imposed on the appellant.

Appellant is not engaged in manufacture of any paper or paper board. These items were their inputs procured after payment of Cenvat Credit duty. These inputs were put to intended use in appellant's factory. In such a situation, this is not tenable to hold that appellant was engaged in the manufacture of waste and scrap of paper.

In a similar dispute before Tribunal in case of WIMCO Ltd. vs. CCE Lucknow, it was observed that, no new product has come into existence. The scrap of paper cannot be considered as a product different from paper, waste arising out of paperboard is not a product different from paperboard. There is no special definition rendering emergence of such waste, scrap, paring as amounting to manufacture. Mere mentioning in the tariff is not sufficient to attract excise levy. By following above, Tribunal allowed Appeal filed by Appellant

Relevant : WIMCO Limited vs. CCE MANU/CE/0527/2008

Tags : DEMAND   PENALTY   CONFIRMATION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved