9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 1108 - AT - Central ExciseClassification of goods - nonwoven felt fabrics falling under Central Excise Tariff Heading 5602 manufactured by it or not - eligibility for exemption Notification No. 29/2004-CE as amended by Notification No. 07/2012-CE - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - Exemption Notification No. 29/2004 is available for goods falling under Chapter 56 made of cotton and not to any other textile material. Undisputedly, the products of the appellant have 56 per cent cotton and 44 per cent of several other materials such as Acrylic, Polyester, wool, nylon, viscose as was found after test by CRCL. It has already been held by this Tribunal in MARK SPLENDOUR NONWOVENS P. LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF C. EX., JAIPUR ALWAR 2017 (10) TMI 1432 - CESTAT NEW DELHI that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of this exemption for the same products. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - These are irrelevant because no extended period of limitation has been invoked in either of these two appeals. As far as the appellant s submission regarding classification of textile materials by the predominant material by weight is concerned, we find that the dispute is not regarding the classification of the products but regarding the exemption notification. The General Rules of Interpretation must be applied to decide classification and they cannot be used to decide the eligibility to an exemption notification. The benefit of the exemption notification is available to goods which are made wholly of cotton whereas in this case, undisputedly the products are not made wholly of cotton. There are no force in the arguments of the appellant. Respectfully following the decision of this Tribunal in the appellant s own case for the earlier period, we hold that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
- Entitlement to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 29/2004-CE as amended by Notification No. 07/2012-CE for nonwoven felt fabrics under Central Excise Tariff Heading 5602. - Application of extended period of limitation. - Classification of textile materials for exemption eligibility. Analysis: Issue 1: Entitlement to Exemption The central issue in the appeals was whether the appellant, M/s Mark Splendour Nonwovens Pvt Ltd., was entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 29/2004-CE for nonwoven felt fabrics made of cotton under Central Excise Tariff Heading 5602. The appellant claimed eligibility for the exemption, while the Revenue contested this claim, arguing that the finished goods contained significant amounts of fibers other than cotton, rendering them ineligible for the exemption. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision involving the same appellant where it was held that the exemption was not applicable due to the presence of various fibers apart from cotton in the finished goods. The Tribunal reiterated that the exemption was only available for goods made wholly of cotton, which was not the case with the appellant's products. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, holding that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. Issue 2: Application of Extended Period of Limitation The appellant raised a ground of appeal regarding the application of the provisions related to the extended period of limitation by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the Tribunal noted that no extended period of limitation had been invoked in either of the appeals under consideration. As a result, the arguments put forth by the appellant concerning the extended period of limitation were deemed irrelevant to the case at hand. Issue 3: Classification of Textile Materials for Exemption Eligibility Regarding the appellant's argument on the classification of textile materials based on the predominant material by weight, the Tribunal clarified that the dispute did not pertain to the classification of the products but rather to the eligibility for the exemption notification. The Tribunal emphasized that the General Rules of Interpretation should be applied for classification purposes and cannot be used to determine eligibility for an exemption notification. Since the appellant's products did not consist wholly of cotton as required by the exemption notification, the Tribunal upheld its decision that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the exemption. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals, reiterating its earlier decision and holding that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification.
|
