9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the notification. - Similar view was taken by CESTAT, Delhi in the case of Kurlon Ltd. vs.- Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-I (2014 (4) TMI 334 - CESTAT NEW DELHI) while interpreting similar entry in Notification No.50/2003-C.E. dated 10.06.2003. There is no specification that plastic under Sl.No.13(IV) should fall under C.E.T.H 39.01 to 39.14 – appellant eligible to claim exemption – decided in favor of assessee. - Appeal No. E/179/2008 - ORDER NO.FO/A/75707/16 - Dated:- 1-8-2016 - Shri H. K. Thakur, Member (Technical) And Shri P.K.Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri Devraj Sahu, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S.S.Chattopadhyay, Suptd.(AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Shri H. K.Thakur 1. This Appeal have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plastic contained in articles of polyurethane foam falling under C.E.T.H 39.22 to 39.26. That for interpreting the wording of Central Excise Exemption Notification the definition given in the Chapter Notes or Section Notes of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 cannot be invoked when no tariff heading is specified in the exemption notification. Ld. Advocate relied upon the case law of Kurlon Ltd. vs.- Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-I[2014(308) E.L.T. 155(Tri.-Del.)]. Ld. Advocate argued that in this case also the product manufactured by Kurlon Ltd. was falling under 39.21 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 and it was held by the CESTAT, Delhi that Appellant will be eligible to the benefit of area based exemption Notification No.5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... termediate products. The only issue he has analyzed is that the product manufactured by the Appellant is not plastic. As per C.B.E.C. Circular No.10/89 dated 10.02.1989 only certain categories of end products of polyurethane foam have been clarified to be classifiable under 39.22 to 39.26. It means there will be certain shapes of polyurethane foam which will fall under 3909.80 as primary form of polyurethane foam. Once a material if considered to be plastic then it cannot be held that the finished product falling by the Appellant classifiable under 39.22 to 39.26 will not be made of plastic. It may be true that the plastic falling under C.E.T.H 39.01 to 39.14 will be plastic in primary form but Notification No.33/99-C.E does not specify tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
