9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 1055 - AT - Central ExciseExemption under N/N. 6/2006 dated 01.03.2006 - product manufactured by the appellant are wood free plain or pre laminated particle or fiberboard, made from sugarcane bagasse or other agro waste - is the appellant eligible for benefit of N/N. 6/2006 or are eligible to concessional duty in terms of Sl. No. 87 of N/N. 4/2006-CE? - Held that - the appellant is manufacturing bagasse board which is covered by Sl. No. 82 of notification no. 6/2006. No reason has been recorded as to why the product manufactured by the appellant cannot be called as baggasse board - the impugned goods are eligible to get exemption without any condition under these two notifications - The Hon ble Supreme Court in various decisions held that the assessee can claim a notification which is more beneficial to them. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee.
Issues:
1. Classification of manufactured boards as bagasse boards eligible for exemption under notification 6/2006-CE. 2. Dispute regarding the entitlement of the appellant for concessional duty under notification number 4/2006-CE. 3. Application of notifications and the principle of opting for a more beneficial notification. 4. Analysis of the lower authorities' decision and the Tribunal's findings in similar cases. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appeals were against orders of the Commissioner (A), Bhopal, concerning the manufacture of plain and pre-laminated particle boards by the appellants, who availed exemption under notification number 6/2006. The department argued that the products were wood-free plain or pre-laminated particle or fiberboards made from sugarcane bagasse or other agro waste, covered by Sl. No. 87 of notification 4/2006. The original authorities confirmed demands for central excise duty and penalties. The Commissioner (A) rejected the appeals, leading to the present dispute. 2. The appellant contended that they manufactured boards solely from sugarcane bagasse, with decorative paper attached. They argued that the predominant bagasse content classified the boards as bagasse boards eligible for exemption under notification 6/2006-CE. The appellant highlighted that manufacturers of bagasse boards nationwide were benefiting from this exemption. However, the lower authorities supported by the Ld. AR, upheld their findings. 3. Upon review, it was noted that the manufacturing process and raw materials were verified, confirming the use of sugarcane bagasse for board production. The lower authority denied exemption, categorizing the boards as plain and pre-laminated particle boards from sugarcane bagasse, thus entitled to concessional duty under Sl. No. 87 of notification 4/2006-CE. The Tribunal observed that the appellant's product aligned with bagasse boards covered by Sl. No. 82 of notification 6/2006, emphasizing that the appellant should benefit from the more favorable notification. 4. The Tribunal referenced Supreme Court decisions supporting the principle that an assessee can claim a more beneficial notification. Citing cases like Share Medical Care Vs. UOI and Collector of Central Excise Baroda Vs. Indian Petro Chemicals, the Tribunal emphasized the appellant's entitlement to choose the notification with lower duty liability. Additionally, a similar view was upheld in Arvind Ltd. Vs. CCE Ahmedabad-III. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the impugned orders, setting them aside and allowing the appeals.
|
