Tribunal rules in favor of printed box manufacturer in tax dispute, upholding exemption for supplies to merchant exporters.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a manufacturer of printed corrugated boxes, in a dispute with the Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur. The Tribunal's decision settled the disputed issue in favor of the appellant, following a previous case precedent. The exclusion of supplies to merchant exporters for exemption purposes was upheld, leading to the dismissal of the confirmed demand, interest, and penalties imposed. The impugned order was deemed unsustainable, and the appellant's appeal was allowed, setting aside the original order.

---

---

Issues:
1. Disputed issue settled in favor of the appellant by Tribunal's decision.
2. Exclusion of value of supplies made to merchant exporters for exemption.
3. Confirmation of demand, interest, and penalties challenged.
4. Sustainability of impugned order in light of Tribunal's earlier decision.

Analysis:

1. The appellant, a manufacturer of printed corrugated boxes, challenged the order-in-original dated 12th February 2010 of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur. The appellant argued that the issue disputed by them stands settled in their favor by the decision of the Tribunal in a previous case. The Learned Counsel for the appellant referred to the Tribunal's decision in Hare Krishna Boxes Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur, which set aside the confirmed demand for the earlier period. However, the Learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue pointed out that an appeal by Revenue against a similar decision in Jai Jawala Processors v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak, had been admitted by the Honorable Supreme Court, without any stay being granted.

2. The dispute centered around the exclusion of the value of supplies made to merchant exporters from the total clearances for the purpose of claiming exemption below the prescribed threshold under notification no. 8/2003-CE dated 1st March 2003. The appellant had been excluding these supplies for the period from August 2007 to December 2008, leading to a demand of &8377;1,06,03,949 under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Additionally, interest under section 11AB and penalties under rule 25 and rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were imposed by the adjudicating authority, all of which were challenged in the present appeal.

3. The Tribunal, in light of its earlier decision for a similar period, clarified that clearances to merchant exporters are to be excluded from the computation of total clearances. As the exclusion of these supplies was not disputed and had been settled in favor of the appellant in the previous case, the impugned order confirming the demand, interest, and penalties was deemed unsustainable.

4. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the impugned order was set aside in favor of the appellant. The decision was pronounced in court on 06/11/2018 by Member (Technical) Shri C J Mathew.

---