Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 1170 - AT - Central ExciseManufacture of paper / paper board - Principal Process of lifting of pulp is done by hand or not - Benefit of N/N. 3/2005-CE dated 24.02.2005 (from 28.02.2005) - condition as mentioned in sub-heading No. 4802.20 (upto 27.02.2005) and in Notification - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The expressions “lifting the pulp is done by hand”, if read with prefixed words “the Principal Process”, it would make clear that lifting of the pulp by hand is required to be only on the Principal Process and not the entire process. In this context, if we look into the manufacturing process mentioned above, it would be noticed that the liquid with pulp fibres is the mixture of waste paper, waste paper tubes / coals and sludge pulp, which is pumped into a storage tank through pipe lines. The main process is the liquid with pulp fibres form layer on the cylinder moulds is transferred through the felt over a sheet copper roll, from where the wet sheets are cut / slit and lifted by hand. On close reading of the CBEC Circular 61/6/71-CX.2 dated 14.6.1972 and the letter of KVIC, it appears that the Principal Process can be described as lifting of pulp or lift of a wet sheet of paper - In the present case, it is found from the manufacturing process that wet sheets are cut / slit and lifted by hand and therefore, the condition of the Tariff heading and the notification are fulfilled. In the HSN, it is stated that these pulps are obtained by a series of mechanical or chemical cleaning / screening and de-inking processes. To extend the benefit of exemption notification, only the Principal Process of lifting of pulp by hand would be looked into - Therefore, the benefit of the exemption notification cannot be denied to the appellants, as the liquid with pulp fibres is pumped from the pulpier to storage tanks through pipe lines. Other issue is that during the visit of the officers, it was found that width of all the three cylinders Mould Vats exceeded the limit of 40 inches, as prescribed in Condition No. (b) of the Tariff / notification. It is contended by the appellant that while measuring the width of cylinder Mould VAT, the perforated portion of the cylinder, where the pulp layer is formed would be considered - HELD THAT:- It appears from the impugned order that this measuring of the perforated portion of the cylinder Mould Vat was not taken into account and therefore, the question of violation of Clause (b) of the Tariff / notification cannot be sustained. Extended period of Limitation - HELD THAT:- The issue involved interpretation of the Tariff heading and the notification. Hence, it cannot be construed that there is suppression of fact, with intent to evade duty - extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|