9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether acrylic plastic sheets, tubes, and plastic bangles attract excise duty under Central Excise Tariff Item No. 15A(2). 2. Whether the products manufactured by the petitioner-respondents are covered under the exemption Notification No. 38/73 as amended by Notification No. 174/73. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Excise Duty Applicability under Tariff Item No. 15A(2) The principal question examined was whether acrylic plastic sheets, tubes, and plastic bangles manufactured by the petitioner-respondents attract excise duty under Tariff Item No. 15A(2). The court noted that the First Schedule mentions Tariff Item No. 15A, which includes "Plastics" and specifies various forms and articles made of plastics. The key term here is "articles made of plastics," which encompasses various items, including sheets and tubes. However, the court emphasized that the classification for excise duty purposes should depend on the nature and character of the final product, not the intermediate stages of production. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Ahmedabad Manufacturing Co., which stated that the classification of the manufactured product for excise duty should be based on its final stage of production unless a contrary intention appears from the statute. This means that the intermediate process of manufacturing acrylic sheets or tubes from monomer does not attract Tariff Item 15A(2) because the final product, plastic bangles, is what should be considered. Additionally, the court cited the Gujarat High Court's decision in Jalal Plastic Industries v. Union of India, which held that "articles made of plastics" refers to items for which plastic material has been used as raw material, not to non-plastic raw materials that have undergone a polymerization process. Thus, the raw material being monomer does not attract the applicability of sub-item (2) of Tariff Item No. 15A. Issue 2: Exemption under Notification No. 38/73 as Amended by Notification No. 174/73 The learned Single Judge did not delve into the question of exemption under the amended Notification No. 38/73 because the primary finding was that the products of the petitioner-respondents are not covered by Tariff Item No. 15A(2). Therefore, the question of exemption became moot. Conclusion The court concluded that the petitioner-respondents, who manufacture acrylic sheets/tubes and plastic bangles from monomer virgin and regenerated monomer through the polymerization process, are not liable to excise duty under Tariff Item No. 15A(2). The products are not covered under this tariff item, and thus, the appeals challenging the learned Single Judge's judgment were dismissed. The court upheld the view that the raw material for manufacturing plastic bangles, being monomer, does not attract the applicability of sub-item (2) of Tariff Item No. 15A. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
