1988 (2) TMI 281 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal grants duty exemption for nylon polymer waste, setting aside penalty and demands

LML LIMITED Versus C. CE, KANPUR

The Tribunal ruled in favor of Upper India Polymers, finding that the waste in question qualified as 'nylon polymer waste' for duty exemption under ... Appeal - Show cause notice issued to licence-holder, being a division of a company Issues: Classification of waste for duty exemption, interpretation of 'nylon polymer waste,' imposition of penaltyClassification of waste for duty exemption:The case involved Upper India Polymers, a division of LML Limited, licensed to manufacture man-made Filament Yarn. They claimed duty exemption for Caprolactum produced from nylon Filament waste. The Assistant Collector denied the exemption, which was upheld by the Collector (Appeals). The issue was whether the waste, falling under sub-heading 54W.10, qualified for duty exemption under Notification 36/85-CE. The department argued that the waste did not meet the definition of 'nylon polymer waste' as per the notification. The appellants contended that the waste arose during the manufacture of nylon yarn and was eligible for exemption under sub-Item (ii) of the classification list.Interpretation of 'nylon polymer waste':The dispute centered on the definition of 'nylon polymer waste' as per the notification, which referred to waste arising during the manufacture of nylon yarn from Caprolactum. The department contended that the waste in question did not meet this definition as it occurred after the filament was formed. The appellants argued that the waste arising before the yarn was wound on cops should be considered waste arising during the manufacture of nylon yarn. The Tribunal analyzed the definition and concluded that the waste in question qualified as nylon polymer waste, entitling the appellants to the duty exemption.Imposition of penalty:The Tribunal found that the denial of duty exemption by the lower authorities was incorrect. Consequently, the classification list should have been approved without modifications. As a result, the duty demanded and the penalty imposed were set aside. The Tribunal noted that the penalty seemed unjustified, especially considering the ongoing dispute between the assessee and the department, which indicated a lack of clarity on the duty liability. Therefore, both appeals were allowed, and the orders of the lower authorities were set aside with consequential relief.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of waste classification for duty exemption, the interpretation of 'nylon polymer waste,' and the imposition of penalty, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal reasoning and conclusions reached by the Tribunal.