9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants own case for the period April 2006 to June 2009. We are concern with the period of demands made on the same issue for the period July 2009 to April 2010. The value of aggregate clearance of diaries be included in computing the exemption limit prescribed under Notification No.8/2003-CE, dt.01.03.2003 for the period in question - the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating authority to determine the aggregate value of clearance and re-compute the demand with interest and penalty. Appeal allowed in part by way of remand. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. 2.3 The Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand with interest and penalty, Aggrieved by the said order, they filed appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, partly allowed their appeal as per the impugned order. 2.4 Aggrieved appellants have filed this appeal. 3.1 Appellants have vide their letter dated 06.07.2022 received in registry on 07.07.2022 filed written submissions and sought decision on the basis of the written submissions made. 3.2 We have heard Shri Sanjay Hasija, Superintendent, Authorized representative. He reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order. 4.1 We have considered the impugned order along with the submissions made in appeal and written submissions filed. 4.2 Along with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s products but on 'catch covers' and 'diaries', considering the same as not packing material the exemption was denied. It is his contention that 'catch covers' are nothing but packing material and hence eligible to the benefit of exemption Notification No.24/2009-CE (NT), dt.21.10.2009. He submits that this Tribunal in the case of Kajal Print & Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Mumbai-V - 2018-TIOL- 3374-CESTAT-MUM, observed that the catch covers are nothing but packing material. He submits that this Tribunal, following the said judgment, this Tribunal has expressed a similar view in the case of M/s Beauty Art Vs CCE Mumbai-I vide Final Order No.A/85452/2019, dt.06.03.2019. 4. The learned A.R. for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ows:- 6. It would appear from the amendment to the notification, and the subsequent exemption under section 11C of Central Excise Act, 1944, that legislative approval for exclusion from exemption did not intend to cover 'packaging' manufacturers in the small scale sector who, by the very nature of their activity, were, undoubtedly, an ancillary but, undoubtedly, in the small-scale sector. The exclusion from exemption is applicable to goods which bear a brand name and the exclusion from coverage under these exclusion is limited to certain categories. That the packaging industry in the small-scale sector would generate its business by manufacture of packages bearing brand names is acknowledged by the amending exclusion in the notification o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
