9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 1104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llow the decision of GPL Polyfils Ltd. [2005 (1) TMI 375 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] to hold that the finished goods manufactured by the appellant does not fall under Chapter 54 or 55 of the CETA, 1985 - demand for the period 1-11-2009 to 28-6-2010 not sustainable. As per the amendment in the FA, 2014, the manufactured product of the appellant which has been obtained from the input plastic waste has been exempted from 29-6-2010 to 16-3-2012. Therefore, the demands for the period 29-6-2010 to 31-3-2012 are also not sustainable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... today itself for disposal along with stay applications. 5. Considering the submission made by the ld. counsel for the appellant, we have accepted the request and appeals as well as stay application are taken up for disposal as consented by both sides. 6. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is manufacturer of polyester staple fibre and polyester filament fibre and they are availing the benefits of Notification No. 4/2006 and clearing the goods without payment of duty. The Revenue is of the view that the finished product manufactured by the appellant falls under Chapter Heading 54/55 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, therefore, they are required to pay duty and is not entitled for the exemption under Notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per the Finance Act, 2012, Chapter Note 1A was introduced to demand duty on the finished products under Chapter 54 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, with retrospective effect i.e. 29-6-2010, if the impugned goods are manufactured from plastic waste. He further submits that as per the Finance Act, 2014 the goods manufactured from plastic waste by the appellants have been exempted w.e.f. 29-6-2010; therefore the impugned demands are not sustainable and prayed that appeals be allowed with consequential relief. 9. On the other hand, ld. AR opposed the contention of the counsel and submits that for the period 1-11-2009 to 28-6-2010 the demands are sustainable as the decision of GPL Polyfils Ltd. (supra) was not a good law as held by the Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In these circumstances, we hold that for the period 1-11-2009 to 28-6-2010 as proposed by the ld. AR, the demands are not sustainable. 13. Further, we find that as per the amendment in the Finance Act, 2014, the manufactured product of the appellant which has been obtained from the input plastic waste has been exempted from 29-6-2010 to 16-3-2012. Therefore, we hold that the demands for the period 29-6-2010 to 31-3-2012 are also not sustainable. 14. Accordingly, the demands of duty, interest and penalties confirmed against the appellant in the impugned order are not sustainable. 15. In the result, the impugned orders are set aside, the appeals are allowed with consequential relief. Stay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
