2018 (7) TMI 676 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of N/N. 67/1995-CE dated 16.03.1995 - The department was of the view that since the respondents are availing concession of duty, they are not eligible for the benefit of N/N. 67/1995-CE dated 16.03.1995 - Held that - The paper cone is neither exempt nor subject to Nil rate of duty and the same is cleared on the quantity based exemption as provided in N/N. 4/2006-CE. Therefore, the respondents cannot be denied the benefit of captive consumption exemption in terms of N/N. 67/1995-CE - The issue stands decided in the case of Pitamber Coated Paper Ltd. (supra) as well as in the decision in the case of M/s. Raguman Packages & Others Vs. CCE 2018 (2) TMI 204 - CESTAT CHENNAI - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Interpretation of excise duty exemptions under Notification No. 4/2006-CE and Notification No. 67/1995-CE.

Analysis:

1. Background and Dispute: The case involved a dispute regarding excise duty exemptions availed by a manufacturer of Paper Board and Paper Cones. The respondent was availing duty concessions under Notification No. 4/2006-CE, but the department contended that this made them ineligible for the benefits under Notification No. 67/1995-CE. Show Cause Notices (SCNs) were issued for duty recovery, interest, and penalties, leading to the original authority confirming these charges. The Commissioner (Appeals) later set aside the original order, prompting the department to appeal before the Tribunal.

2. Contentions: The department argued that the respondent's exemption under Notification No. 4/2006-CE was conditional and did not amount to a complete exemption from excise duty. On the other hand, the respondents contended that they were entitled to the benefit of captive consumption exemption under Notification No. 67/1995-CE, citing a precedent (Pitamber Coated Paper Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur) where a similar exemption was upheld by the Honorable Supreme Court.

3. Judgment: The Tribunal examined the nature of the exemption under Notification No. 4/2006-CE, which was quantity-based, and concluded that the respondent could not be denied the captive consumption exemption under Notification No. 67/1995-CE. The Tribunal referenced the precedent set by the Pitamber Coated Paper Ltd. case and another recent decision (M/s. Raguman Packages & Others Vs. CCE), reinforcing the respondents' entitlement to the exemption. Consequently, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

4. Conclusion: The Tribunal's decision clarified that the quantity-based exemption under Notification No. 4/2006-CE did not preclude the respondents from availing the captive consumption exemption under Notification No. 67/1995-CE. By citing relevant precedents, the Tribunal upheld the respondents' entitlement to the exemption, emphasizing the specific conditions and nature of the exemptions involved in the case.