9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n filed by the appellant against the Order-in-Appeal No. 10/SH/CE(A)/GHY/18 dated 20.04.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals), C.G.S.T, Central Excise & Customs, 5th Floor, Custom House, Nilamoni Phukan Path, Christian Basti, Guwahati - 781 005 wherein the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the demand of duty amounting to Rs.24,85,168/- (inclusive of cesses), along with applicable interest and upheld the imposition of penalty to the extent of Rs.2,48,517/- under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He has also upheld the penalty of Rs.5,000/- imposed under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. This demand pertains to the period from 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2017. 2. As the issue involved is common in respect of both the appeals, they are taken up together for disposal by way of a common Order. 3. The facts of the case are that M/s. Timpack Private Limited, 15th Mile, G.S. Road, Byrnihat, Dist: Ri-Bhoi, Meghalaya - 793 101(the appellant herein) is a manufacturer of the following three products: - (i) Bamboo Mat Board (ii) Bamboo Mat Corrugated Sheets (iii) Bamboo Mat Ridge Caps 3.1. The Department has classified all the above three products ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst the appellant. 6. The present appeals have been filed against the Order-in-Original dated 22.07.2016 and Order-in-Appeal dated 20.04.2018, passed in the proceedings initiated by way of the above two Show Cause Notices. 7. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that all the products manufactured by them were classified by the Department under Central Excise Tariff Head No. 4412 1000 as there was no separate heading available for classification of the other two products viz., "Bamboo Mat Corrugated Sheets" and "Bamboo Mat Ridge Caps". In this regard, he referred Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 44 of Section IX of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 to contend that all the products are identical and are required to be clubbed together. In view of the above, it is the submission of the appellant that the benefit of concessional rate of duty of 1% / 2% as provided under Notification No. 01/2011-C.E. dated 01.03.2011 and Notification No. 16/2012-C.E. dated 17.03.2012 is available to all the products manufactured by the appellant. In support of their contention, the appellant has placed reliance on the following case-laws: - i. Naffar Chandra Jute Mills Ltd. v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), the Central Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the excisable goods of the description specified in column (3) of the Table below and falling under Chapter, heading, sub-heading or tariff item of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986), specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Table, from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon under the said Central Excise Act, as is in excess of the amount calculated at the rate of 1% ad valorem : Provided that nothing contained in this notification shall apply to the goods in respect of which credit of duty on inputs or tax on input services has been taken under the provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 52 44 or any Chapter Resin bonded bamboomat board, with or without veneer in between ...." * Notification No. 16/2012-C.E. dated 17.03.2012 "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), the Central Government, being satisfied that it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the demands confirmed in the impugned orders by denying the concessional rates of duty in respect of the two products namely "Bamboo Mat Corrugated Sheets" and "Bamboo Mat Ridge Caps" is legally not sustainable and hence we set aside the same. 13.1. Since the demand of Central excise duty is not sustainable, the question of demanding interest and imposing penalties does not arise. 14. We also find that the appellant has contested the issues on the ground of limitation. 14.1. In respect of the first Show Cause Notice dated 09.07.2015, the demand has been raised by invoking the extended period of limitation, for the period from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2015. It has been stated before us that the appellant has written many letters to the Department and inter alia sought clarification regarding the eligibility of the benefit under the said Notifications to all the three products. It is observed that the various letters have been sent by the appellant to the Revenue and no information has been suppressed by them from the Department with the intent to evade payment of duty. Therefore, since the appellant was always in correspondence with the Department and have time and again sought cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
