Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (3) TMI 948

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... SRI GANAPATHY PACKAGING VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF GST CENTRAL EXCISE [ 2020 (2) TMI 1114 - CESTAT CHENNAI ]. The said order was followed in the case of M/S. PUSHPA MATCH WORKS, M/S. AMSARANI MATCH WORKS, M/S. SELVI PACKAGING, M/S. ESTHAR MATCH WORKS, M/S. JOTHI MATCH WORKS, M/S. SREENIVASAN MATCH WORKS, M/S. SRI RAMAIYA MATCH INDUSTRIES, M/S. SRINIVASA MATCH WORKS, M/S. SOLAIAMMAL MATCH WORKS, M/S. NANDHINISHRI MATCH WORKS, M/S. BALAJI MATCH WORKS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST CENTRAL EXCISE [ 2023 (3) TMI 827 - CESTAT CHENNAI] - It was held by the Tribunal that appellants are not eligible for the benefit of exemption notification No.4 ibid. The appellant is not eligible for the benefit of exemption of the Notification. The impu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... anyone or more processes viz. frame filling, dipping, filling of boxes, pasting of labels or packing. 4. The learned counsel Shri M. Kannan appeared and argued for the appellants. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the appellants are independent manufactures. They purchased machine dipped match splints and undertook box filling and packaging without the aid of power and then cleared at nil rate of duty. The department has issued the Show Cause Notices proposing to deny the benefit of Notification No. 4/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006. After due process of law, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. 5. The learned counsel was fair enough to submit that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed out with the aid of power applies not just to the specific goods under consideration but the same goods whenever manufactured. In other words, if the specified processes in relation to such goods are, in the ordinary course of commerce, carried out with the aid of power, the restrictions would apply and the exemption would not be available. This conclusion may be reached de hors the facts of the specific cases at hand. Thus, in order to succeed in its claim for exemption, the burden on the assessee is heavy - it must prove that the specified or listed processes are not ordinarily carried out with the aid of power and not merely that power was not used in its specific case. This burden has not been discharged. 9.5 I may also point ou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 12. It is the case of the appellants that they have procured dipped match splints from other manufacturers who have removed such goods on payment of duty. I find that this would not make any difference since the entitlement to exemption is to be determined separately in each assessee s case. The fact that duty has been paid on some intermediate/ semi-finished goods not themselves entitled to exemption is in no manner relevant to whether exemption is to be granted at a subsequent stage to the finished goods. In any event, the cascading effect is effectively mitigated by CENVAT credit. The exemption notification must be applied only to the goods it seeks to cover. 13. There are also references to many Circulars/Notifications by Member .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in question. Since those processes were carried on with the aid of power though carried outside the factory, the requirement of the notification would not be answered so as to entitle the appellants to exemption from duty. It is not necessary to refer to any authority inasmuch as on the analysis indicated above the claim for refund appears to have been rightly rejected . . 16. On an overall analysis of facts in the cases on hand, I find that the above ratio decidendi squarely applies to the facts on hand and hence, I am of the opinion that the appellants are not eligible for the benefit of exemption notification No.4 ibid and accordingly, I concur with the conclusions drawn by the Member (Technical). Registry is directed to place the m .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates