2019 (8) TMI 1023 - HC - Central Excise

Non-removal of office objections under Rule 986 of the High Court (Original Side) Rules - Condonation of delay in taking out this application - HELD THAT - This appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act), challenges the order dated 29th December, 2006 passed by the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). CENVAT Credit - inputs - inputs classified under Chapter 39 having 39.20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (Tariff Act) or not - HELD THAT - The inputs classified under Chapter 39 of the Tariff Act, 1985 as claimed by M/s. Paper Products Ltd., and not under Chapter 40 of the Tariff Act, 1985 as claimed by the Revenue - there is no question, much less any substantial question of law, which remains to be resolved. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing application for setting aside an order - Classification of inputs for CENVAT Credit under Central Excise Act, 1944.

Condonation of Delay:
The Applicant sought condonation of a 525-day delay in filing an application to set aside an order rejecting their appeal for non-removal of office objections. The Respondent did not oppose the delay being condoned, and the Notice of Motion was allowed accordingly.

Classification of Inputs for CENVAT Credit:
The appeal challenged an order by the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal allowing CENVAT Credit on 'Shrink Sleeves' received from a supplier who classified them under Chapter 39 of the Tariff Act, 1985. The Revenue contended that the 'Shrink Sleeves' should be classified under Chapter 40, attracting a 'Nil' rate of duty. However, the Tribunal upheld the classification under Chapter 39, allowing the CENVAT Credit based on a previous case decision and the Supreme Court's affirmation of the same. The Revenue accepted the Supreme Court's decision, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as no substantial question of law remained unresolved.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the appeal as the issue regarding the classification of inputs for CENVAT Credit was settled by the Supreme Court's decision, leaving no substantial question of law to be addressed. The Tribunal's decision was upheld based on the classification under Chapter 39, and the appeal was consequently dismissed.