2006 (3) TMI 517 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty amount and penalty.
2. Classification of waste and scrap of paper and plastic.
3. Marketability of the goods.
4. Time-barred demand.

Analysis:

1. Dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty amount and penalty:
The application sought to waive the pre-deposit of duty amount and penalty. The duty amount of Rs. 1,60,673 and penalty of Rs. 1,58,950 were confirmed against the appellant, a soap manufacturer, for waste and scrap of paper used in soap packing. The Tribunal considered the request and ultimately allowed the stay petition unconditionally.

2. Classification of waste and scrap of paper and plastic:
The waste and scrap of paper were classified under heading 4702.90, while waste and scrap of plastic originating during packing was classified under heading 3915.90. The appellant argued that the goods were not marketable, emphasizing that mere sale does not establish marketability. The advocate contended that Chapter 47 pertains to paper, specifically waste and scrap originated during paper manufacture. The Tribunal seemed to agree with the appellant's arguments on the classification of these items.

3. Marketability of the goods:
The issue of marketability was raised, with the appellant asserting that the goods were not marketable despite being sold. The argument focused on Chapter 47 concerning paper and the nature of waste and scrap within that context. The Tribunal appeared to consider this argument in the decision-making process.

4. Time-barred demand:
The demand was raised on 20-2-2001 for the period March 1996 to December 1999. The appellant challenged the demand as time-barred. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal, prima facie, agreed with the appellant's advocate on the merits and the issue of being time-barred. Consequently, the stay petition was unconditionally allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed various critical issues such as waiving the pre-deposit condition, classification of waste and scrap, marketability of goods, and the time-barred nature of the demand. The decision reflected a consideration of legal arguments and factual aspects presented by the parties involved in the case.