Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2005 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (2) TMI 594 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
1. Duty demand confirmation against manufacturers of paper and paperboards. 2. Interpretation of Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. regarding exemption from duty up to 210 MTs. 3. Inclusion of news print clearances in the computation of first clearances for duty assessment. Analysis: 1. The judgment deals with a case where a demand of duty amounting to Rs. 9,49,645/- was confirmed against manufacturers of paper and paperboards for the month of March 2000. The original authority and the first appellate authority upheld this demand, leading to the filing of an appeal by the manufacturers. 2. The issue revolved around the interpretation of Notification No. 6/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000, which provided an exemption from duty up to 210 MTs of paper and paperboard. The condition of the Notification specified that this exemption applied only to paper and paperboard cleared for home consumption within a specific period. The contention arose regarding the inclusion of news print clearances in the computation of the first clearances for the purpose of duty payment. 3. The appellants argued that the lower authorities erred in including the clearances of news print in the calculation of the first clearance of 210 MTs, contrary to the interpretation provided in the Board's Circular F. No. 341/15/2000-TRU, dated 21-7-2000. This circular clarified that clearances of paper exempted from duty should not be considered in the computation of the first clearance of 210 MTs for duty assessment purposes. 4. The judgment highlighted that the Board's circular, which is binding on the Revenue, was not taken into account by the lower authorities. As per the circular, the manufacturers were entitled to exclude the clearances of news print from the calculation of the first clearance of 210 MTs for duty assessment. Consequently, the impugned order confirming the duty demand was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the manufacturers.
|