TaxTMI Login
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
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate Tribunal dismisses reference application on recycled Caprolactam excisability and duty exemption extension.</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR Versus JK. SYNTHETICS</h3> COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR Versus JK. SYNTHETICS - 1998 (99) E.L.T. 464 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Whether recycled Caprolactam obtained from waste generated during fabric weaving is excisable.2. Whether exemption under Notification No. 36/85 can be extended to Caprolactam recovered during the recycling of waste.Detailed Analysis:1. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur filed a reference application regarding the excisability of recycled Caprolactam obtained from waste generated during fabric weaving. The first question raised was whether this Caprolactam falls under sub-heading 2933.10 and is not excisable. The Tribunal noted that the determination of whether the Caprolactam is excisable involves a question related to the rate of duty applicable to the goods. Citing a Supreme Court decision in Navin Chemical Mfg. & Trading Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, the Tribunal emphasized that the interpretation of the scope of Section 35G, under which the application was filed, excludes questions involving the rate of duty from being referred to a High Court.2. The second question in the reference application pertained to the extension of exemption under Notification No. 36/85 to Caprolactam recovered during the recycling of waste. The Tribunal observed that this question also involves the rate of duty and is not within the scope of cases eligible for reference to a High Court under Section 35G. Consequently, on the grounds that both questions raised in the reference application relate to the rate of duty, the Tribunal found the application not maintainable and dismissed it.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal held that the questions raised in the reference application regarding the excisability of recycled Caprolactam and the extension of exemption under Notification No. 36/85 both involved the rate of duty and were therefore not suitable for reference to the High Court under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal dismissed the application on these grounds.
TaxTMI 