TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 992
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sse Board falling under Chapter 44109090 and 44101190 respectively of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They had filed ER -3 return for the quarter ending December 2010 and March 2011 and ER-1 return for the month of April 2011 claiming exemption from payment of Central Excise Duty under Sr. No. 82 of Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 as amended. It appeared that the Respondent were manufacturing their products namely "Plain Bagasse Board and Prelam Bagasse Board' from the Sugarcane Bagasse by adding Resin, transparent paper etc. and therefore the exemption claimed by them under the Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 was not correct. The correct and appropriate Notification applicable in the instant case appeared to be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lain or pre-laminated board is made from sugarcane bagasse, it would have a rate of duty@ 8%. The description and the words in the notification are quite plain and unambiguous. 2.1 He further submits that Rule 3(a) of the General Rules, prescribed to the First Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (Tariff Act) says that the heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description. 2.2 He also submits that the adjudicating authority has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Darshan Boardlam Ltd. & 1 (SCAs numbered 1667 of 2012, 2997 of 2012 and 1625 of 2012 which was ruled in similar case that the NIL rate was applicable to the petitioner unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ollowing decisions: * Union of India Vs. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. - 2004 (164)ELT 375 (SC). * Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum Vs. Vasavadatta Cement - 2008(087). 3. Shri Hiren J Trivedi, Learned Counsel, for the respondent supported the finding of the impugned order and submits that it is settled law duly substantiated by various authorities and judgments of the Judicial court that in case of two notification operating simultaneously, for the same product, provide two different applicable rates of duty, the beneficial notification should be allowed to the assessee. 3.1 He also submits that it is erroneous to infer that plain or Prelam Bagasse Board using sugarcane Bagasse as raw material would be falling under Chapter 4410 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inished goods products from bagasse can avail exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006. 3.3 He also argued that Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in SCA No. 1667/2012, 2997/2012 and 1625/2012 have rightly ruled that NIL rate was available under Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006. It is improper for the revenue to comment upon the ruling of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat. The revenue has not been able to show the distinction between Plain and Prelam Particles Boards vis-à-vis Bagasse Board. It is not correct of say that Hon'ble High Court has not considered the literal meaning of Bagasse, which is agro waste and therefore qualify to be considered for exemption from central excise attracting Notification No. 6/2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have chosen Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. only on the ground that the description of the impugned product is matching with the entry in the said notification. However, we note that there is no dispute that the appellant is manufacturing bagasse board which is covered by Sl. No. 82 of Notification No. 6/2006. No evidence and reason has been produced by the department regarding the dispute that as to why the product manufactured by the respondent cannot be called as bagasse board. We find that the impugned goods are eligible to get exemption without any condition under these two notifications. The respondent cannot be compelled to opt for a notification which has higher duty liability. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions held that ....