TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is concerned, the same is covered by the decision of CESTAT in the case of CCE, Kanpur Vs. G.P.L. Polyfils Limited (2005 (1) TMI 375 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI). - HSN explanatory notes, Synthetic Filament Yarn includes Partially Oriented Yarn, Fully Oriented Yarn and Texturised Yarn of polyester which will be covered by the description PFY mentioned in Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2014, which retrospectively exempted the said goods. Therefore, the entire period is covered in the demand show cause notices, either because the duty was not leviable on PSF and POY manufactured by the appellants or the same were exempted under retrospective exemption or by introducing entry No. 172A in Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012. Due to the correc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted Yarn (POY) and waste and scrap of PSF and POY generated in the process of manufacture of PSF and POY. That demands are pertaining to the period April 2008 to March 2013 with respect to PSF and POY and also the waste of both these products manufactured by the appellant. That M/s. Khodiyar Fibrefill is a division of M/s. Alliance Fibre Limited and was earlier functioning in the name and style of M/s. Alliance Fibre Limited. That the present demands were issued as a result of CBEC Circular No. 929/29/2010-CX dated 29.06.2010 holding a view contrary to the decision of the CESTAT in the case of CCE, Kanpur vs. GPL Polyfils Limited - [2005 (183) ELT 27 (Tri. Del.)]. That the said Circular was contested by the appellant before the Delhi High C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T) bottles during the period 29.6.2010 to 16.10.2012. It was his case that appellant is manufacturing POY which is not covered within the meaning of PFY. As a counter to the argument made by the learned AR, Shri Prabhat Kumar (Advocate) for the appellants argued that as per HSN explanatory notes under Chapter heading 54.02, Synthetic Polyester Yarn includes Partial Oriented Yarn, Fully Oriented Yarn and Polyester Texturised Yarn. He also made the Bench go through the explanatory notes given under HSN Explanatory notes for sub-heading 5402.42 and other scientific publications. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in these appeals is whether PSF and POY manufactured by the appellant from plastic waste pet bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lymerization of organic monomers, such as polyamides, polyesters, polyurethanes or polyvinyl derivatives; or (b) By chemical transformation of natural organic polymers (for example, cellulose, casein, proteins or algae), such as viscose rayon, cellulose acetate, cupro or alginates. It remains undisputed that none of these processes, had been undertaken by the assessee in respect of their fibre so as to bring the same within the ambit of this Chapter 54 or even Chapter 55 which are part of the First Schedule. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has, in our view, rightly dropped the duty demand against the assessees on this ground. 5. Thus the impugned goods were not classifiable under the Central Excise tariff during the period up to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ic waste or scrap or plastic waste including waste polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles (which is already exempt w.e.f. 8.5.2012) is being exempted retrospectively w.e.f. 29.6.2010 to 7.5.2012. Clause 102 of the Finance (No. 2) Bill, 2014 refers. Intermediate product Tow arising during the course of manufacture of such PSF/PFY is being exempted retrospectively w.e.f. 29.6.2010 to 10.7.2014 so as to provide relief to the manufacturers of such PSF/PFY. Clauses 102 and 103 of the Finance (No.2) Bill, 2014 refer. 5. In view of the above settled position of law, demands for the period after 29.06.2010 do not stand. PSF or PFY manufactured from plastic scrap and plastic waste were exempted as per the amendment carried under Notification No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... greed that admissibility of Notification No. 89/95-CE dated 18.05.1995 was not raised by the appellants before the adjudicating authority. It is observed that exemption to waste and scrap under Notification No. 89/95-CE is subject to certain conditions mentioned in proviso contained in this notification. The aspect of availability of exemption is, therefore, required to be remanded back to the adjudicating authority, who will decide the same in the remand proceedings, after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. 7. So far as imposition of penalties upon other appellants are considered, in our considered view, no penalties are attracted because on merits the appeals filed by the appellants are allowed. 8. Appeals file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
