2023 (3) TMI 948 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of benefit of exemption Notification No. 4/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 at Sl. No. 72 - classification of matches - matches classifiable under Chapter 3605.00.10 or 3605.00.90? - appellants are independent manufactures - appellant purchased machine dipped match splints and undertook box filling and packaging without the aid of power and then cleared at nil rate of duty - HELD THAT - The issue as to whether the benefit of Notification No.4/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 is available to the appellant has been decided by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/S SRI GANAPATHY PACKAGING VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF GST CENTRAL EXCISE 2020 (2) TMI 1114 - CESTAT CHENNAI . The said order was followed in the case of M/S. PUSHPA MATCH WORKS, M/S. AMSARANI MATCH WORKS, M/S. SELVI PACKAGING, M/S. ESTHAR MATCH WORKS, M/S. JOTHI MATCH WORKS, M/S. SREENIVASAN MATCH WORKS, M/S. SRI RAMAIYA MATCH INDUSTRIES, M/S. SRINIVASA MATCH WORKS, M/S. SOLAIAMMAL MATCH WORKS, M/S. NANDHINISHRI MATCH WORKS, M/S. BALAJI MATCH WORKS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST CENTRAL EXCISE 2023 (3) TMI 827 - CESTAT CHENNAI - It was held by the Tribunal that appellants are not eligible for the benefit of exemption notification No.4 ibid. The appellant is not eligible for the benefit of exemption of the Notification. The impugned order does not require any interference - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves the applicability of exemption Notification No. 4/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 at Sl. No. 72 regarding matches classifiable under Chapter 3605.00.10 or 3605.00.90.

Summary:

The appeals were heard together concerning the applicability of the exemption notification for matches not manufactured with the aid of power. The counsel for the appellants argued that they undertook box filling and packaging without power and cleared goods at nil rate of duty. The department issued Show Cause Notices proposing to deny the benefit of the notification, leading to confirmation of demand and penalty imposition. The issue had been previously settled by the Tribunal in related cases.

The Tribunal observed that the notification required the specified processes to not be ordinarily carried out with the aid of power for the exemption to apply. The burden of proof lay on the assessee to show that the processes were not usually powered. The judgment emphasized that the exemption was specific to the goods specified and not to the manufacturer. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of each notification's unique circumstances and cautioned against generalizing their applicability.

Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal ruled that the exemption applied only if no process in relation to manufacturing was ordinarily powered. The majority order sustained the demands and dismissed the appeals based on the established principles. Consequently, the appellant was deemed ineligible for the exemption, and the impugned orders were upheld.

In conclusion, the appeals were dismissed based on the Tribunal's decision, affirming that the appellant did not qualify for the exemption under the Notification.