Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Appeal granted for HDPE tapes under Notification No.67/95-CE, aligning with Supreme Court ruling.</h1> <h3>Rahuman Packages Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Madurai</h3> Rahuman Packages Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Madurai - TMI Issues:Interpretation of SSI exemption under Notification No.8/2003-CE for HDPE/PP woven sacks/fabrics, applicability of duty on intermediate products, dispute regarding duty liability for intermediate goods used in the manufacture of exempted final products, analysis of Tribunal's decision in a similar case, consideration of proviso clause in Notification No.67/1995-CE for exemption of intermediate products.Analysis:The case involves M/s.Rahuman Packages manufacturing HDPE/PP woven sacks/fabrics, availing SSI exemption under Notification No.8/2003-CE. The dispute arises as HDPE tapes/strips, intermediate products captively consumed by the appellant, were excluded under the notification. The Department demanded duty on these intermediate products, leading to an adjudication order confirming duty demand, interest, and penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld most of the original order, reducing the penalty. The appellant appealed to the Tribunal, citing a similar case's favorable decision.During the hearing, the appellant's counsel referenced a Tribunal decision in Angu Garments & Others, where duty liability for intermediate goods used in manufacturing exempted final products was discussed. The Tribunal's detailed analysis in that case highlighted the importance of complying with Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules to determine exemption eligibility for intermediate goods. The Tribunal emphasized that the same final product need not be partly dutiable and partly exempted for Rule 6 to apply, clarifying the misconception adopted by CESTAT.The Tribunal compared the facts of the present case with Angu Garments, noting that both cases involved manufacturing intermediate products captively consumed by the manufacturer, with final products exempt based on location or turnover. Referring to a Supreme Court decision on Notification No.67/1995-CE, the Tribunal concluded that exemption for intermediate products was available. The Tribunal differentiated another case, M/s.Kunnath Textiles, which did not address the proviso clause's implications, unlike the Supreme Court's ruling in M/s. Ambuja Cements Ltd.After careful consideration, the Tribunal applied the Supreme Court's ratio to allow the appeal, stating that intermediate products in the present case were eligible for the benefit of Notification No.67/95-CE. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential benefits as per law. The Tribunal's decision aligned with the legal position established by the Supreme Court, ensuring the exemption for intermediate products under the relevant notification.