2014 (6) TMI 164

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (CETA) depending upon the ratio of plastics and base material (paper) used. The demand of duty in this case has been raised only on the ground that the input/ raw material (Arjobond paper) was being used by the appellant only in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter 39, and the other input/ raw material (Arjocast paper) was being used by the appellant only in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter 48. The present appeal relates to goods falling under Chapter 48 only. Revenue found that the consumption of input/ raw material (Arjocast paper) was much more than the production of goods falling under Chapter 48 of the CETA recorded in the appellant's RG 1 Register - Daily Stock Accou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... case laws:                  (a) Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I - [2006 (205) ELT 700 (Tri. Mumbai)];                   (b) Chandan Tobacco Company Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi  [2011 (270) ELT (Tri. Ahmd.)];                 (c) Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs Vs. Swati Polyester  [2008 (221) ELT A-26 (Guj.)];               (d) Polyfill Sacks Vs. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....under Chapter 48. At the first page of the appellants letter dated 12.03.1988, the appellant had categorically declared that Arjocast paper was being used by them both in the manufacture of Floor Coverings of Chapter 39 as well as those of Chapter 48. Similarly, as evident from Para 5 of the impugned Order-in-Original, the appellant had filed declaration under erstwhile Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, 1944 to the effect that the arjocast paper was input used for both type of Floor Coverings. These facts are further corroborated through affidavits filed by technical experts of the appellant. The Revenue has not adduced any positive and tangible corroborative evidence to prove their is case of clandestine removal in the form of excess of o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... unwarranted assumptions and cannot be upheld. (b) Chandan Tobacco Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Vapi (supra) wherein the CESTAT held:               9. We find that the entire basis for raising and confirming the demand against the appellant is the declaration made by them in terms of Boards circular. We have gone through the said circular which requires the manufacturer of Gutkha, Pan Masala, Tobacco etc. to give intimation about the number of machines installed in their factory and the working capacity of the same. There is nothing in the said circular laying down that the manufacturers are required to discharge the duty liabilities in accordance with the dec....