Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2023 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 453 - AT - Central ExciseClassification of goods - goods imported by the appellant for manufacturing of re-processed granules - main bone of contention in this case concerns the eligibility of the Re-processed granules, manufactured by the appellants for exemption under Sl. No. 78 of Notification No. 4/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006 - To be classified under chapter heading 3915 or fall under Chapter heading 3906 and 3912? - Extended period of limitation. HELD THAT:- The exemption under notification No. 4/2006 (Sl. No. 78) is available to plastic materials manufactured in factory using waste and scrap of goods falling under Ch. 39, 54 etc. as input. Clearly, benefit of exemption under Notification No. 4/2006 (Sl. No. 78) is available where inputs are waste and scrap of goods falling under Ch. 39, 54 etc. The words “of goods” is of critical importance. It is not merely “waster and scrap” but “waste and scrap of goods”. It is obviously applies to used and discarded goods of Ch. 39, 54 etc. assorted and collected as waste and scrap.In the present matter documents i.e. Certificate of foreign supplier, Test Report of imported goods produced by the appellant clearly show that the goods imported by the appellant are material not of prime grade. Further in the present matter there is no dispute on the use of the imported goods as waste & scrap by appellant in factory premises. Thus, it is evident beyond the scope of any doubt that the imported plastics granules were nothing but waste and scrap of goods falling under chapter 39 - the imported goods have to be considered as waste &scrap of goods falling under chapter 39 and entitled to above exemption. Hence there are no merit in impugned order. Extended period of limitation - suppression of facts - HELD THAT:- The issue involved is clearly an interpretational issue of exemption notification and the interpretation made by the Revenue could have been made from the claim of notification as declared in their ER-1 return. It is also fact on record that the appellant have cleared the goods by filing bills of entry and the fact that the goods imported is not classified under 3915 was well informed to the Department. Therefore, in the peculiar facts as noted above there is no suppression of fact or malafide intention on part of the appellant, therefore, the invocation of extended period is illegal and incorrect. Accordingly, the demand for the longer period is not sustainable on the ground of time bar also. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
|