2010 (7) TMI 172 - SC - Central Excise

Paper- Notification No.6/2000-CE dated 1st March 2000 as amended by Notification No. 36/2000-CE dated 4th May, 2000- The assessee was engaged in the manufacture of paper of different varieties falling under Chapter 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Exemption sought to be denied alleging two unit as not distinct and separate and holding that bifurcation only with a view to avail exemption. However, upon consideration of the reply submitted by the assessee, the Commissioner dropped the proceedings for which the said show cause notice had been issued by him. Tribunal also dropped the demand. Held that- both the authorities below have found as a fact that both the units had the requisite equipment for manufacture of paper starting from the stage of pulp to the final stage of the end product i.e. paper. The finding is a pure question of fact and is not put in issue by the revenue. Thus, the appeal of revenue dismissed.

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No.6/2000-CE dated 1st March 2000 and Notification No. 36/2000-CE dated 4th May, 2000 for exemption eligibility.
2. Allegation of bifurcation of factory units to avail exemption benefits.
3. Commissioner's findings on compliance with exemption conditions.
4. Tribunal's dismissal of revenue's appeal.
5. Assessment of equipment for paper manufacturing in factory units.

Interpretation of Notification for Exemption Eligibility:
The case involved the interpretation of Notification No.6/2000-CE dated 1st March 2000 and Notification No. 36/2000-CE dated 4th May, 2000 for exemption eligibility concerning the first clearances of 3500 Metric Tonnes of paper. The assessee, engaged in paper manufacturing, claimed exemption under these notifications for two separate units post bifurcation in 2000. The Commissioner found that the units fulfilled the conditions of the notifications, including having machinery for paper manufacturing from pulp to the final product stage. This interpretation was crucial in determining the eligibility for exemption benefits.

Allegation of Bifurcation of Factory Units:
The Revenue alleged that the assessee bifurcated the factory units merely to avail the benefit of the aforementioned notifications, despite the units not being distinct and separate. This allegation stemmed from a search conducted by Excise Department officers. A show cause notice was issued based on this suspicion, but the Commissioner dropped the proceedings after considering the assessee's response. The issue of alleged bifurcation was pivotal in the assessment of the assessee's eligibility for exemption benefits.

Commissioner's Findings on Compliance with Exemption Conditions:
The Commissioner's order of adjudication highlighted that the assessee's units met the conditions specified in the notification for availing the exemption benefits. The Commissioner noted that the units had separate streams of production for paper manufacturing, each independent of the other, and the clearances for exemption were claimed separately by the two units. The Commissioner was satisfied that the terms and conditions of the notifications had been duly complied with by the units, leading to the dropping of the show cause notice. These findings were crucial in determining the assessee's compliance with the exemption requirements.

Tribunal's Dismissal of Revenue's Appeal:
The Revenue, aggrieved by the Commissioner's decision, appealed before the Tribunal, which subsequently dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal's decision to uphold the Commissioner's findings regarding the eligibility of the assessee for exemption benefits led to the Revenue filing a Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court. The Tribunal's dismissal of the Revenue's appeal was a significant development in the legal proceedings.

Assessment of Equipment for Paper Manufacturing in Factory Units:
Both the Commissioner and the Tribunal found as a fact that the units possessed the necessary equipment for manufacturing paper from pulp to the final product stage. This factual determination was crucial in establishing the eligibility of the units for exemption benefits under the notifications. The Supreme Court, based on these findings, concluded that the impugned order did not raise any legal questions and subsequently dismissed the appeal. The assessment of the equipment for paper manufacturing played a vital role in the final decision of the Supreme Court.

← Previous Next →