Supreme Court: State Cannot Acquire Temple Property Through Gift Deed  ||  Supreme Court: HC Registry Should Exclude Court Vacations When Listing Cases After Fixed Days  ||  Supreme Court Flags Stark Non-Compliance With Directions on CAPF Cadre Review  ||  Supreme Court: Internet Access and Use is a Fundamental Right, Including for Children  ||  Supreme Court: Letters Patent Bench Cannot Interfere Merely Over Errors of Fact or Law  ||  Supreme Court: Voters May File Complaints Against Candidates over False Affidavits under RP Act  ||  Madras HC: Using Children in Campaign is Inappropriate but Does Not Invalidate Election  ||  Allahabad HC: Section 69 BNS Cannot Be Invoked by Transgender Woman in False Marriage Promise Case  ||  Delhi High Court Permits Britannia’s ‘No Added Sugar, Maida or Palm Oil’ Claim on Biscuit Packs  ||  Calcutta High Court Bars Deportation of Alleged Bangladeshi Woman until CAA Application is Decided    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved