2018 (7) TMI 1275

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Aggarbatties packed in Printed Duplex Boxes/Dibbies. The said Aggarbatties manufactured by the appellant are classifiable under Chapter Heading No.3307 41 00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and attracted nil rate of duty by the tariff entry itself. 3. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the Paperboard Dibbis/Boxes manufactured by the appellant and consumed captively in packing the Aggarbatties. Inasmuch as Aggarbatties were chargeable to nil rate of duty, the lower authorities have held that the captive consumption Notification No.67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 would not be available to the appellant and they are required to discharge duty liability on the said boxes. Accordingly demands stand raised against them by invoking the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mage to them beyond use and sold along with Agarbatties packed therein. 5. In any case and in any view of the matter, it is appellant's contention that they were eligible to the benefit of Notification No.67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995, in the light of the law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in its decision in the case of M/s.Ambuja Cement Ltd. Versus Commissioner of C.Ex., Chandigarh 2015 (326) E.L.T. (13) (S.C.). The application of the ratio of law laid by the Honourable Apex Court in the aforesaid decision would show that that both the dutiable product Dibbies and Boxes as well as the exempted product Agarbatties manufactured by the Appellant were both final products within the meaning of the said Clause (vi); that therefore in such a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Heading 3307 which attract nil rate of duty, since under the integrated process of packing of Agarbatties the boxes/dibbies did not come into existence as a separate entity in an identifiable form. For the above proposition they have relied upon the Board's Circular No.11/89 dated 13.03.1989 as also Tribunal's decision in the case of M.F. Tools and Engineering (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Chennai [2006 (198) ELT 97] as also the Tribunal's decision in the case of Print N-Pack (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad [2012 (275) ELT 95]. They have also contested the separate marketability of the boxes inasmuch as they are not capable of being bought and sold in the market for a consideration, for the simple reason that they do not come into....