9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in manufacturing of excisable goods i.e. Polypropylene Compound, Polypropylene Oxide, ABS compound, Polyamide Chips falling under Chapter Sub-Heading No. 39021000, 39093010, 39032000, 39081090 respectively of Central Excise Tariff. The Appellant is having Central Excise Registration No. AAACI2040PXM002. The appellant also avails benefits envisaged in CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 1.1 During the period from October 2011 to June 2012 and July 2012 to April 2013, the Appellant herein were manufacturing re-processed plastic granules out of waste of goods falling within Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff and were clearing the same on payment of `Nil' rate of duty whilst availing benefits envisaged in Notification No.04/2006 C.E. dated 0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be classified under 3914. Therefore, the contention of the Revenue is incorrect. He submits that the issue is no longer Res-integra as the same was considered in following judgments:- Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Collector of C.Ex., Aurangabad - 2000 (115) ELT 802 (Tribunal). Shree KansaraSarvodyaSahakariUdg. Mandli Ltd. Vs. CCE Baroda1999 (106) ELT 325 (Tribunal) Metrosyl, Jesidih Industrial Area Vs. Collector of C.Ex.- 1991 (53) ELT 93 (Tribunal) BASF India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise (Tribunal) 1989(40) ELT 363(Tribunal) 3. Shri Rajesh K Agarwal, Learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue, reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. On careful consideration of the submissions made by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nil ....... 4.1 We find that in the present matter the case of the Revenue is that as per the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 "Waste, Parings and Scrap; Semi-Manufactures; Articles Waste, Parings and Scrap of Plastics" falls under Chapter Heading 3915, while the input imported and used by the Appellant for manufacturing of re-processed plastics granules fall under Chapter Heading 3906 and 3912 and therefore do not fulfil the condition of Notification No. 4/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006. 4.2 We find 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/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red out of scrap falling under chapter 39. The appellant have claimed the exemption notification and declared in the ER-1 return. The Revenue was not prevented to find out the eligibility of the exemption notification and view of the Revenue could be expressed immediately on filing of ER-1 return and the show cause notice could have been issued within a normal period. Therefore, claiming the exemption notification which was in the knowledge of the Revenue, the suppression of fact or mala fide on the part of the appellant cannot be attributed. 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- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
