Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 421 - AT - Central ExciseProcess amounting to manufacture - cutting of jumbo roll into small sizes and then packs the same as paper napkins and facial tissues in the unit containers - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The definition of manufacture contained in section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was amended with effect from 01 March, 2003 and under the Third Schedule to the Central Excise Act, it has been mentioned that Central Excise Tariff, Chapter Heading 4818 covers cleansing or facial tissue paper, handkerchiefs and towels of paper pulp, paper cellulose wadding or webs of cellulose fibre. The amendment in the definition of manufacture under section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 came into effect from 01 March, 2003 - The type of activity undertaken by the respondent-assessee would amount to manufacture and Central Excise duty was required to be paid on the clearance of paper napkin, paper towel, etc. manufactured by it from Jumbo roll after packing / repacking of the same in the consumer packs. The issue before Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI-I VERSUS S.R. TISSUES PVT. LTD. [2005 (8) TMI 111 - SUPREME COURT] was regarding the position existing prior to 01 March, 2003. Thus, the judgement of Supreme Court in the S R Tissues, in view of the amendment made in the definition of manufacture, which included cutting, slitting, packing, repacking of the products falling under 4818, would not be applicable after 01 March, 2003. Time Limitation - demand of Central Excise duty which was made under the extended time limit of 5 years under the proviso to section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- The Department merely by stating that the respondent-assessee had mis-declared, suppressed facts and had evaded Central Excise duty, issued the show cause notice. It cannot be said that the assessee had earlier suppressed and mis-declared facts with an intent to evade payment of duty. Thus, the extended time period under section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1944 could not have been invoked. Supplies of finished goods manufactured by the appellant were made to Institutional consumers - HELD THAT:- The issue whether the goods are infact supplied to the Institutional consumers in bulk packs or in retail packs is the subject matter of verification, which can only be done by the field formation. Though the show cause notice mentions that the goods in question are liable for assessment as per the provisions of section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944, but it does not elaborates the type of consumer packs that have been made by the respondent-assessee - This claim can only be verified by field formations for which purpose it needs to provide the necessary documents, like order of supply, invoices etc. It has also to be ascertained as to how much quantity out of the total quantity manufactured by the respondent-assessee was supplied to the Institutional consumers and how much was supplied to the normal customers. This also needs to be verified by field formations. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.
|