2021 (11) TMI 699

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....earned Counsel for the respondent/assessee vehemently opposes the delay by stating that there is no cause, much less sufficient cause, shown by the appellant to explain the inordinate delay in filing the appeal, more particularly, the period between 2nd June, 2019 to 14th March, 2020, when there is a delay of 287 days. Learned Counsel for the appellant/revenue submitted that on account of frequent transfer of the officers of the department and change of person in charge of the file and change of counsel, delay has occurred. In any event, since we are inclined to hear the matter on merits, we exercise discretion and condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is allowed. CEXA/11/2021 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... have elaborately heard Mr. Ganguli, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Sen, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee. The short question involved in the present appeal is with regard to whether the assessee in terms of Rule 57C of the MODVAT Credit Rules is entitled to claim credit of duty on the ground that the final products are exempted. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of Biaxially Oriented Polypropylene Films (BOPP) and they had filed MODVAT credit on Polypropylene Granules but had cleared the waste and scrap of plastics arisen from such inputs, and payment of central excise duty. According to the revenue, in terms of Notification No.42/92 dated 1st March, 1992, waste and scrap of plasti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ness of the same the revenue is before us by way of this appeal raising the aforementioned substantial questions of law. On a perusal of the order impugned before us, we find that the Tribunal after taking note of the statutory provisions took note of the decisions of the Tribunal, CESTAT West Zonal Bench, Mumbai in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad - versus- Cosmo Films Ltd. reported in 2014(307) ELT 967 (Tri-Mum) and allowed the assessee's case. We find that the said decision was in respect of another assessee who are engaged in the same process of manufacture namely manufacture of BOPP Films. The Tribunal took note of the decision. The Tribunal followed the case of MRF Ltd. and Supreme Industries, repo....