Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (8) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2016 (8) TMI 979 - AT - Central Excise


Issues involved: Eligibility for availing benefit of Notification 8/97 dated 1.3.1997 based on the usage of imported paper cones for winding cotton yarn.

Analysis:
1. Issue of Eligibility for Notification 8/97 Benefit: The central issue in this case revolves around determining whether the respondent is entitled to the benefit of Notification 8/97 dated 1.3.1997. The Revenue contends that the respondent, a 100% EOU manufacturing cotton yarn, utilized imported paper cones for winding yarn, rendering them ineligible for the exemption under Notification No. 8/97. The Revenue argues that the imported paper cones qualify as raw materials, disqualifying the respondent from the exemption.

2. Adjudication and Appeal: Initially, the adjudicating authority ruled against the assessee, but the first appellate authority overturned this decision. The appellate authority reasoned that since paper cones were utilized as packing materials, the benefits of Notification 8/97 should be extended to the assessee, thereby allowing the appeal.

3. Argument and Counter-argument: The learned AR representing the Revenue argued that the marketability aspect of products due to the usage of imported paper cones should be considered for determining eligibility under Notification 8/97. The AR contended that the classification of paper cones as packing materials by the respondent was irrelevant. Conversely, the respondent's advocate argued that Notification 8/97 specifically restricts the use of raw materials, and since paper cones are classified as packing materials, they should not be considered raw materials.

4. Analysis of Evidence: Upon scrutiny of the records, it was established that the imported paper cones were recognized as packing materials by the Ministry of Commerce through a formal letter. The first appellate authority correctly interpreted that raw materials are materials used in the manufacturing process, which does not include paper cones used for winding cotton yarn. Moreover, the Ministry of the Government of India also acknowledged paper cones as packing materials distinct from raw materials, allowing their duty-free import.

5. Judicial Findings: The first appellate authority's findings emphasized that various government departments treated paper cones as packing materials separate from raw materials, making the respondent eligible for the Notification 8/97 benefit. The Revenue failed to refute these findings effectively with supporting evidence. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected, and the impugned order was upheld, declaring the demand, interest, and penalty as unsustainable.

In conclusion, the judgment delves into the nuanced interpretation of the term "raw materials" under Notification 8/97, highlighting the significance of proper classification and recognition of materials used in manufacturing processes. The decision underscores the importance of aligning with established governmental classifications and notifications to determine eligibility for specific exemptions and benefits.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates