TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 453
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....During the course of audit of records of the appellant, central excise officers observed that appellant was also manufacturing re-processed Plastic Granules and clearing the same without payment of duty under Notification No. 04/2006-C.E. dated 01.03.2006. As per the department, it appeared that Appellant had wrongly cleared re-processed plastic granules without payment of duty. The said Notification actually specified that, Plastic materials falling under Chapter Heading No. 3901 to 3914 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, reprocessed out of waste of goods falling under chapter 39,54,56,59,64,84,85,86,87,90,91,92,93,94,95 and 96 can be cleared at „Nil‟ rate of duty. Whereas appellant had received imported Acrylic Re-processed G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied by them and imported by the appellant for reprocessing the same into India under the bill of entries are waste of plastics in primary form. 2.1 He also submits that at the time when the goods were imported, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, had drawn the sample of the said imported goods. Sample were taken from the lot covered under some of the bill of entries. As per the test report the goods are "material not of prime grade". 2.2 He further submits that the Ld. Adjudicating authority had totally ignored the submission that inputs imported are waste and scrap although same do not classify under Tariff Item 3915. They are waste of plastics in primary form classified under Tariff Item 3906 and 3912 respectively. The Ld. Adjudicati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(115) ELT 802 (Tribunal) Shree Kansara Sarvodya Sahakari Udg. Mandli Ltd. Vs. CCE Baroda- 1999 (106) ELT 325 (Tribunal) Metrosyl, Jesidih Industrial Area Vs. Collector of C.Ex.- 1991 (53) ELT 93 (Tribunal) BASF India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise - 1989(40) ELT 363 (Tribunal) 2.5 He further submits that show cause notice was barred by limitation. The Adjudicating authority had also failed to appreciate the same. The period in dispute is from December 2006 to September 2011. The show cause notice dated 11.11.2011. As per the Annexure -A to the show cause notice details of the clearances of the final products made under exemption is given. According to the same, demand is made towards the said period. Total demand is of Rs. 52,9....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot invokable. He placed reliance on the following decision. 2011(24) STR 572(Tri. Delhi) -CCE Indore Vs. Medicaps Ltd. 2012(25) STR 46 (Tri. Ahd.) - Parekh Plast (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Vapi. 1989(40) ELT 276 (SC) - Collector of Central Excise Vs. Chemphar Drugs & Liniments 1989(43) ELT 195(SC) - Padmini Products Vs. CCE 2005(188) ELT 251 (SC)- Gopal Zarda Udhyog Vs. CCE 1994(73) ELT 257 (SC) - Lubri-Chem Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE 2005(188) ELT 149 (SC) -Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE 2007(216)ELT 177(SC)- Continental Foundation JT. Venture Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh -I 2.6 He also submits that whether exemption from payment of excise duty is available in accordance with Exemption Notification No. 4/2006-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds falling within Chapters 39, 54, 55, 56, 59, 64, 84, 85, 86, 87, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95 and 96 Explanation. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that nothing contained in this exemption shall apply to plastic materials reprocessed in a free trade zone, a special economic zone or a hundred per cent export-oriented undertaking and brought to any other place in India Nil ....... 4.1 We find that in the present matter the case of the revenue is that as per the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 "Waste, Parings and Scrap; Semi-Manufactures; Articles Waste, Parings and Scrap of Plastics" falls under chapter heading 3915, while the input imported and used by the Appellant for manufacturing of re-processed plastics granules fall under Cha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the longer period is time bar as there is no suppression of fact. We find that the demand show cause notice was issued on 11.11.2011 for the period of December, 2006 to September, 2011 by invoking the extended period. The issue is the eligibility of the Notification No. 04/2006- CE dated 01.03.2006 which has a clear condition that the goods are exempted if it is manufactured out of scrap falling under chapter 39. The appellant have claimed the exemption notification and declared in the ER-1 return. The Revenue was not prevented to find out the eligibility of the exemption notification and view of the Revenue could be expressed immediately on filing of ER-1 return and the show cause notice could have been issued within a normal period. Ther....