2016 (9) TMI 178

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er falling under heading No.4804.90 and core pipe falling under heading No. 4822.00 of the CETA 1985. During the period in dispute from April, 2002 to 16 June, 02, the appellant was eligible for exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 06/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 on their first clearance up to 3500 M.T. of paper and paperboard or articles made therefrom. The condition in the notification was that the goods starting from stage of pulp, should contain not less than 75% by weight of pulp made from materials other than bamboo, hard woods, soft woods, reeds or rags. 2.2 That as per condition No. 14 of the said notification, the exemption shall apply only to the paper and paperboard or articles made therefrom cleared for home consum....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d the weight of core pipe with the Kraft paper cleared under the overall  permissible limit of 3500 MT per financial year. 2.6 Vide O/O dated vide 23.02.06 the Asstt. Commr. dropped the proceedings observing that core pipe do not come in existence first, and thus, cannot be captively consumed in the manufacture of Kraft paper. Further, Kraft paper and core pipe both fall under chapter heading 48 to the schedule of CETA. Kraft paper cannot be cleared without being rolled on the core pipe. It was also held that the provisions of Notification No. 67/95, were not applicable in the facts of this case. He also states that core pipe falls under articles of paper, it is also exempted under Notification No. 6 of 2012. 3. Being aggrieved, the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....separate exemption notification for intermediate goods manufactured before final taxable output, and the same cannot be enforced on the appellant. Further, it is admitted case that the appellant have not cleared more than 3500 MT the permissible limit under Notification No. 06/02. Accordingly, he prays for setting aside the impugned order. 5.  The Ld. A.R. for the Revenue relies on the impugned order. 6.  Having considered the rival contentions, we find that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) have erred in imposing the application of notification No. 67/95-CE wherein it has no application in the facts of this case wherein the appellant have claimed exemption under a different notification being 06/02-CE. We also hold that the said t....