2016 (5) TMI 8

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. That Appeal was directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai dated 21 July 2010. 3. In a common order delivered in some stay Applications and two Appeals, the Tribunal concluded that the Notifications which are subject matter of inquiry and adjudication do not enable the Appellant/Asseseee to manufacture plastic bags, but they have to manufacture the garbage bags of plastic, plastic Rolls and recycled granules of plastic. 4. Having noted this conclusion of the Tribunal, we find that the Appeals raise substantial questions of law. They are admitted on the following substantial questions of law: - (a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ber 2005 issued by the Government of India, Office of the Development Commissioner, SEEPZ, Ministry of Commerce & Industry. 7. It is stated that the Superintendent of Central Excise was informed by the Asst.Development Commissioner, SEEPZ that the Unit falls in 'No Action Category' and consequently what has been clarified is that clearance of plastic bags from the Unit be treated as clearance from normal DTA Unit for which central excise is not leviable. However, Mr.Shah would submit that a query was raised that which plastic bag is to be termed/treated as garbage bag and the plastic bag manufactured by the Assessee is different from the garbage bag has not been clarified. There was a specific explanation given even by the Asst.C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....53/97 Cus dated 3 June 1997 and Notification No.1/95 CE dated 4 January 1995. 11. Mr.Shah, therefore, submits that an opportunity be given to the Appellant-Assessee to satisfy the Tribunal that the conditions of the Notifications have been complied with. 12. Mr.Shah would submit that the order impugned in the Appeals be, therefore, set aside and the matter be restored to the file of the Tribunal. 13. On the other hand, Mr. Jetly, learned Counsel for the Revenue would submit that what the Appellant is now indulging in is a mere play of words. What the Appellant represented to the Revenue was that it indeed desires to make bags and which are utilized for collection of garbage, they may be of plastic. But there is a distinction and as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d therein as user industry was subjected to the exemption. The excisable goods specified in Annexure-1 to the Notification and brought in connection with the above are exempted by this Notification. There are conditions set out but we do not see any material referred in the Tribunal's order, which would indicate specific terms and conditions of this Notification being violated. 17. The second Notification is to exempt specified goods imported for production of goods for export or for use in 100% Export Oriented Undertaking. 18. If these were indeed Notifications, terms and conditions of which have been referred so also of the license in favour of the Assessee, then we do not see how the Tribunal could have dismissed the argument o....