2019 (4) TMI 1147 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - clearance of packing materials namely, printed cartons of paper and paper board and also catch covers affixing the brand name of others - Time Limitation - HELD THAT - The issue decided in the case of KAJAL PRINT PACK (PVT) LTD SUNIL P RUI VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE MUMBAI V 2018 (10) TMI 158 - CESTAT MUMBAI , where it was held that There is no definition of printed cartons of paper or paperboard either in the notification or elsewhere. Accordingly, this description should conform to such as is commonly understood, and intended, in the industry. There is no reason to deviate from the aforesaid findings of the Tribunal. Time limitation - HELD THAT - The appellant from time to time disclosed all relevant facts to the department while claiming the exemption and there is no suppression of fact on their part with intent to evade payment of duty - the appeal succeeds on both counts, that is, on merit as well as on limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. YDB/48/M-I/2011 dated 15.07.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-I.
- Interpretation of Notification No. 24/2009-CE(NT) dated 21.10.2009 regarding exemption of packing materials.
- Exemption eligibility for catch covers under SSI exemption benefit.
- Invocation of extended period of limitation.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against Order-in-Appeal No. YDB/48/M-I/2011 dated 15.07.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-I. The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of printed cartons and catch covers, availed SSI exemption benefit under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 1.3.2003. The issue arose when they cleared packing materials without duty payment during specific periods. Subsequently, Notification No. 24/2009-CE(NT) dated 21.10.2009 was issued, retrospectively allowing exemption to various packing materials, excluding catch covers. A show-cause notice was issued for recovery of unpaid duty, leading to the present appeal.

2. The main contention revolved around the interpretation of the notification regarding exemption of packing materials. The appellant argued that catch covers, used for packing medicines, should be considered as packing materials and hence eligible for exemption. Referring to a previous case, the appellant highlighted that catch covers were considered as packing materials, and therefore, the benefit of exemption should extend to them. The appellant also emphasized that they had duly disclosed the removal of catch covers to the department during the relevant period.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the circumstances and previous rulings, notably the case of Kajal Print and Packing Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal observed that the legislative intent did not exclude packaging manufacturers in the small-scale sector from exemption. It was acknowledged that catch covers were indeed packaging materials. The Tribunal found no reason to distinguish between printed cartons and catch covers, thus allowing eligibility for exemption. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the appellant had consistently disclosed all relevant facts to the department, ruling out any suppression of facts to evade duty payment.

4. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the appeal on both merit and limitation grounds. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief as per law. The judgment emphasized the inclusion of catch covers as eligible for exemption under the relevant notification and highlighted the importance of full disclosure of facts by the appellant to support their claim.