2014 (3) TMI 916 - AT - Central Excise

Duty demand - Manufacturing of resin and using the same in exempted goods - Held that - no duty is chargeable on resins and the first appellate authority in the appellant s own case has set aside the demands confirmed by the adjudicating authority for a period which is subsequent to the period in the issue before us in these appeals, and there being an acceptance of the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the appellant s own case for the subsequent period, we do not find any reason to sustain the impugned order which is in appeal before us - Following decision of Moti Laminates Pvt. Ltd. - 1995 (2) TMI 67 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Manufacturing of laminated bagasse board and pre-laminated medium density fibre board, liability for duty on resin used in exempted goods, conflicting decisions by lower authorities.

Analysis:
The case involves the manufacturing of laminated bagasse board and pre-laminated medium density fibre board. The main issue is the liability for duty on resin used in exempted goods. The Revenue contends that using resin in exempted goods makes the appellant liable for duty. The appellant, however, argues that resin is not a final product, citing a decision by the Apex Court in a previous case. Both lower authorities upheld the duty demand and imposed penalties and interest.

In a written submission, the appellant highlighted that in a subsequent appeal on a similar issue, the first appellate authority ruled in their favor, setting aside the duty demand based on the Apex Court decision. During the hearing, it was confirmed that the department had accepted the decision of the first appellate authority in the appellant's subsequent case.

The Tribunal considered the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Moti Laminates, which held that no duty is chargeable on resins. Given that the first appellate authority in the appellant's subsequent case had set aside similar demands and the department had accepted that decision, the Tribunal found no reason to uphold the impugned order. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.