2017 (2) TMI 891 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of N/N. 6/2002 - whether the assessee have rightly claimed the benefit of concessional rate of duty in clearance of the products under Serial No. 86 of N/N. 6/2002 for the first 3500 MT of clearance and thereafter, in the same financial year by availing benefit of Serial No. 86(A) of the same N/N. 6/2002, as amended by N/N. 48/2004? Held that - the issue herein is squarely covered by the precedent decision of Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Karanja industries Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, 2009 (7) TMI 1114 - CESTAT BANGALORE wherein considering the same notification and the same entries, this Tribunal held that, from the conditions and reading of the entries 86 and 86(A), it is very clear that benefit of Serial No.86 and 86(A) can be availed by the assessee if he fulfills the conditions as mentioned - If that be so, the appellant s claim for benefit of lesser rate of duty of 12% as mentioned under Serial No.86(A) of the N/N. 06/2002, cannot be denied by the revenue as condition No.14(A) does not put any restriction on the availment of such benefit if the assessee had availed the benefit under Serial No.86 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Claim of concessional rate of duty under two different entries of Notification No. 6/2002 in the same financial year.

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of uncoated Kraft paper, claimed the benefit of concessional duty under Serial No. 86 for the first 3500 MT of clearance and under Serial No. 86(A) thereafter in the same financial year. The revenue objected, demanding differential duty and imposing penalties. The Order-in-Original confirmed the demand, but on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed it in part, reducing the penalty. The appellant approached the Tribunal, challenging the denial of benefits under both serial numbers.

The Tribunal referred to a Division Bench decision in the case of Karanja Industries, where it was held that an assessee can avail benefits under both Serial Nos. 86 and 86(A) if the conditions are met. The Tribunal also cited a ruling of the Karnataka High Court in the case of West Coast Paper Mills Ltd., emphasizing that compliance with condition No. 14(A) is necessary. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was eligible for the benefit under both serial numbers if the conditions were fulfilled.

Since the appellant did not fail to meet the conditions under both serial numbers, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order. The appellant was granted consequential benefits as per the law. The Tribunal appreciated the assistance provided by the Amicus Curie in the case.

In summary, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the claim for concessional duty under both Serial Nos. 86 and 86(A) of Notification No. 6/2002 in the same financial year, based on the fulfillment of conditions as per legal precedents and relevant notifications.