2017 (6) TMI 752 - AT - Central Excise

Court overturns decision rejecting paper reel transfer application under Rule 16B, deeming conversion a manufacturing activity.

International Paper APPM Ltd. Versus CCE & ST, Visakhapatnam

The Member(Judicial) found that the Principal Commissioner erred in rejecting the application for transferring paper reels for further processing under ... Applicability of provision of Rule 16B and 16C of CER, 2002 - permission to clear the goods under provisions of Rule 16B without payment of duty to their sister concern - Held that: - If there is no dispute that conversion of reels to reems is amounting to manufacture, then transfer or clearance of reels by the appellant to their own sister concern is not clearance of finished excisable goods and the rule 16B would be directly applicable. The provision of rule 16-B of Central Excise Rules are in the nature of facilitation for movement of further activity, which should not be denied for technicalities - The provision of rule 16-B of Central Excise Rules are in the nature of facilitation for movement of further activity, which should not be denied for technicalities - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:1. Application for permission to transfer paper reels for further processing under Rule 16B/16C of Central Excise Rules, 2002.2. Rejection of application by the Principal Commissioner.3. Applicability of Rule 16B to the activity of converting paper reels into reams.4. Interpretation of the provisions of Rule 16B of Central Excise Rules, 2002.Analysis:The appeal was filed against the rejection of an application for transferring paper reels to a sister concern for further processing under Rule 16B/16C of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant, a manufacturer of paper products, argued that the activity of converting paper reels into reams should be considered a manufacturing activity based on a previous tribunal case. The appellant contended that if this conversion process is deemed manufacturing, Rule 16B of the Central Excise Rules should apply, allowing the transfer of goods without payment of duty. The Departmental representative, however, argued that Rule 16B only applies to the removal of excisable goods, not finished goods like the paper reels in question.Upon reviewing the arguments and the provisions of Rule 16B, the Member(Judicial) found that the Principal Commissioner erred in rejecting the application. The Member noted that a previous tribunal case had determined that the conversion of reels to reams constitutes manufacturing. Even though the paper reels were finished goods for customers, they were semi-finished when sent for conversion. Therefore, the transfer of reels to the sister concern was not the clearance of finished excisable goods, making Rule 16B directly applicable. Additionally, the Member emphasized that Rule 16B serves as a facilitation for further activities and should not be denied based on technicalities.Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the application was deemed unsustainable and set aside. The Principal Commissioner was directed to allow the appellant to remove excisable goods in accordance with Rule 16B of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The judgment clarified the applicability of Rule 16B to the conversion process, emphasizing the importance of facilitating movements for further activities within the manufacturing process.