GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (6) TMI 44 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

2015 (6) TMI 44 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - 2015 (329) E.L.T. 534 (Tri. - Ahmd.) - Duty demand - whether PSF and POY manufactured by the appellant from plastic waste pet bottles, is liable to duty during the period April 2008 to March 2013 - Held that:- PSF or PFY manufactured from plastic scrap and plastic waste were exempted as per the amendment carried under Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.3.2012, an entry No. 172A was inserted by Notification No. 24/2012-CE dated 08.05.2012. So far as the peri .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he 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 corrective action taken by Revenue, it is held that there was no intention to charge duty on impugned PSF and POY for the period involved in these appeals.

Exemption to waste and scrap under Notification No. 89/95-CE is sub .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Hon'ble Member (Technical),JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Prabhat Kumar, Advocate and Shri Mukund Chauhan, Consultant For the Respondent : Shri K. Shivkumar, Authorised Representative ORDER Per : Mr. H.K. Thakur; These appeals have been filed by the appellants against OIO No. OIO-SUR-EXCUS-002-COM-050-055-13-14 dated 30.12.2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat. As the issue involved in all these appeals is the same therefore, these are taken up together for disposal. 2. Shri Pra .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ured 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 Co .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ellant were exempted with effect from 08.5.2012. It was strongly argued by the learned Advocate that for the period prior to 29.6.2010, the impugned goods manufactured by the appellant were not leviable to duty as per decision of CESTAT in the case of CCE, Kanpur vs. GPL Polyfils Limited (supra) and for the period from 29.6.2010 to March 2014, no duty was leviable as a result of retrospective amendment under Section 110 of Finance Act, 2014 and the exemption notification issued.. 2.1 With respec .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

les 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 E .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rned Advocate relied upon the decision of the CESTAT Delhi in the case of Shiva Texfabs Limited vs. CCE, Chandigarh (supra). It was his case that all the issues in the present proceedings have been covered by CESTAT Delhi. Paras 4 to 6 of the order No. 53987-53990/2014 dated 23.09.2014, passed by CESTAT Delhi in the above case, are relevant and are reproduced below:- 4. In view of the aforesaid amendment it is evident that the impugned demand pertaining to the period 29th June 2010 to 16th March .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and its Chapter note I defines man-made fibres, as under :- "Throughout the First Schedule, the term man-made fibres means staple fibres and filaments of organic polymers produced by manufacturing processes, either : (a) By polymerization 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e brought under the scope of the said chapter in view of the insertion of Chapter Note 1A in Chapter 54 with effect from 29.6.2010. Consequently, for the period up to 28th June 2010 the goods were not liable to Central Excise duty as has been held by the CESTAT in the case of G.P.L. Polyfils (supra). In this regard it is pertinent to note that the CBEC vide Circular dated 29.6.010 stated that the case of G.P.L. Polyfils Limited would be relevant for the particular facts as in the said case and h .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the distiguishment has to be rational, logical and substantive enough to take away the precedential value of the judgement and the adjudicating authority s attempt at distinguishing the CESTAT order falls abysmally short of that requirement. 6. in this regard, it is not out of context to quote Para 4 of the DO letter F.No. 334/15/2014-TRU dated 10.7.2014 : 4. Excise duty on Polyester Staple Fibre (PSF) and Polyester Filament Yarn (PFY) manufactured from plastic waste or scrap or plastic waste i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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. 12/2012-CE dated 17.3.2012, an entry No. 172A was inserted by Notification No. 24/2012-CE dated 08.05.2012. So far as the period prior to 29.6.2010 is concerned, the same is covered by the decision of CESTAT in the case of CCE, Kanpur Vs. G.P.L. Polyfils Limited (supra). The argument of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version